Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 838 (MP)

Ramsewak Sharma v. State of M. P.

2012-09-03

G.D.SAXENA, S.K.GANGELE

body2012
ORDER Saxena, J. -- 1. This writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner, claiming following reliefs : “A. That, the respondent No.6 may kindly be directed to not to store the vitiated water in the open and the same is not to be flown in open Government land or in the river Sankh. B. That, the respondent No.6 may kindly be directed to have a neutralizing plant for the vitiated water in their system so that same water can be used again by it and therefore it is not required to be stored. C. That, it is so required to flow the waste water out of the plant, it is to be neutralized in the system and thereafter it is to be flown out side so that it may not harm and effect to the any living creature. D. That, it is also to be directed to respondent No.6 that remaining grain waste should not be sold out being poisonous to the dairy farm.” 2. It is worthwhile to mention here that earlier the respondent/State came up in a proceedings under section 482 of CrPC before the Single Bench of this Court raising altogether similar reliefs against the respondent No.6-Gwalior Distilleries Ltd., and this Court vide order dated 17th May, 2012 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8128/11, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length issued the following directions which being relevant are quoted below : “(11) Having examined the provisions of the section and having applied the principles of interpretation of Statute, in the opinion of this Court, the District Magistrate is fully within his juridcition to entertain the application in such cases and pass appropriate orders if he is satisfied that the facts and circumstances fulfils the requirements of section 133 CrPC so as to enable him to pass conditional order for removal of the nuisance in question. In that view of the matter, the learned District Magistrate is directed to consider the suggestions, if any, given by the petitioner and the respondent Distillery and Water Pollution Board of State and the provision of Water Act Pollution Act and by passing an order of a regularoty nature for removing the dangerous elements as per norms of the water polluted from discharge of effluent water from distillery, he may direct for installation of effective water treatment system and thereafter for reuse of the effluent water for distillery, in case other possible use of secondary purpose other than drinking by human being, animals or birds except discharging in open land is not possible. This will not only improve the environment system of the area but also save the national loss causing by close down the running industry. The District Magistrate can regulate such activities by issuing the effective directions after consultation and patient hearing on the suggestions of the concerned parties.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that the discharge of the effluents from the unit of the respondent No.6 at the open Government land is likely to create a nuisance or render such water harmful/injuries to public health as well as to the life and health of animals or plants or of acquatic organisms. It is submitted that despite submitting representation, the respondents No.1 to 5 have not taken any interest. The petitioner then had to file a petition being Writ Petition No.1627/11 which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.3.2011 as the prayer made by the petitioner was found to be in the nature of public interest and therefore the petitioner has again moved to this Court with public interest. 4. Looking to the pleadings made in the petition, it appears that there is a serious contamination of the water flowing at the area from the unit thereby causing hazard to animal, human and acquatic life. There is further expressed apprehension that the effluent of the industry is likely to pollute the waters of the stream, river and nearby wells, which might be injurious to animal, human and acquatic life. There is further expressed apprehension that the effluent of the industry is likely to pollute the waters of the stream, river and nearby wells, which might be injurious to animal, human and acquatic life. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the duty of the authorities concerned to provide for prevention and control of water pollution in terms of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the other protection laws. 5. Section 25 provides restrictions on establishing any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system, or any extension or addition thereto which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream without the previous consent of the State Board. 6. Section 26 of the Act covers cases where effluents were being discharged even prior to the coming into force of the Act and makes the position the same as the one obtaining after the coming into force of the Act. 7. Section 32 of the Act confers power on the State Board to take emergency measures. Section 33 gives power to the Board to make an application to Courts for restraining apprehended pollution of water. Under section 33A, the Board has power to give directions notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. Chapter VII of the Act provides for penalties and the procedure to be followed. Section 44 provides penalty for contravention of sections 25 and 26 of the Act. Section 45 contamplates enhanced penalty after a previous conviction. Section 45A provides for penalty for contravention of certain provisions of the Act. Section 46 provides for publication of names of the offenders. Cognizance of offences under the Act is provided for by section 49 and section 50 of the Act gives status of public servants to the members, officers and servants of the Board. 8. Thus, there exist clear provisions under the Act for prevention of pollution of water in the area. What is contended by the petitioner is that the statutory authorities and the authorities who are expected to be concerned with public health have shown an attitude of indifference to the performance of their duties. 8. Thus, there exist clear provisions under the Act for prevention of pollution of water in the area. What is contended by the petitioner is that the statutory authorities and the authorities who are expected to be concerned with public health have shown an attitude of indifference to the performance of their duties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5 being District Environment Protection Officer of the area is required to demonstrate his total effectiveness in the context of the various environmental protection enactments and be ensured to discharge his duties in terms of the various enactments. 9. Under the circumstances noticed above, it is therefore essential to ensure that the industrial effluents are not allowed to be discharged into the water courses without adequate treatment because in the absence of the same, the discharges would render the water unsuitable as source of drinking water and cause increasing damage to human creature. We thus think that it will be in public interest and in the interests of public health to prevent contamination or pollution of water in the area by directing the respondents as also the State of Madhya Pradesh to take immediate steps under the relevant enactments after considering the suggestions given by the petitioner and respondent No.6-Unit and direct for installation of neutralizing plant to prevent discharge of effluent water from the unit with further directing to the authorities to enforce the laws including the penal provisions against one and all, including the Housing Board, Regional Development Authorities and the Municipal Corporation. We also think it to be appropriate to issue directions to the respondents to see that adequate arrangements are made for protection of the environment and prevention of pollution of water and air. After all, right to health is the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as held by Hon’ble apex Court in re : Bhavani River v. Sakhi Sugar Ltd. [ (1998)2 SCC 601 ]. 10. Having considered the above, we think it appropriate to issue the following directions in this case : (i) The State of Madhya Pradesh represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government is directed to ensure that the Environmental Protection laws enacted in public interest are strictly enforced in the State with a view to protect the environment and public health. Having considered the above, we think it appropriate to issue the following directions in this case : (i) The State of Madhya Pradesh represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government is directed to ensure that the Environmental Protection laws enacted in public interest are strictly enforced in the State with a view to protect the environment and public health. (ii) We direct the respondents to ensure that adequate provisions are made for prevention of pollution in terms of the Environmental Protection Act; the Air Act and the Water Act and immediate steps be taken to prevent air, water and noise pollution. (iii) We direct the Municipal Corporation and other Municipalities to take steps to ensure that within their respective areas of operation, all steps contemplated by the Environmental Protection Act, the Air Act and the Water Act are taken and that the duty of the Corporation under the Municipalities Act or Municipal Corporations Act are duly and properly performed so as to maintain health and prevent pollution. (iv) We direct the State Pollution Control Board to take rigorous steps to enforce the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, the Air Act and the Water Act and the Noise Pollution Control Rules in whole of the State and also launch prosecutions under the various Acts against such persons, authority or statutory bodies who are found to violate the various pollution control enactments or Rules. (v) The Pollution Control Board is also directed to ensure that no industry is permitted to be established or set up within the State without ensuring that adequate pollution control measures as contemplated by the various Acts are adopted by the concerned industry. 11. Subject to above directions, the petition stands disposed of. 12. A copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State Government for necessary compliance pursuant to above directions issued by this Court.