DEEPAK NITRITE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a series of orders made by the High Court of Gujarat. A petition was filed before the High Court in public interest alleging large-scale pollution caused by industries located in Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (G.I.D.C.), Industrial Estate at Nandesari. It is alleged that effluents discharged by the said industries into the effluent-treatment project had exceeded certain parameters fixed by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (G.P.C.B.), thereby causing damage to the environment. Some of the industries have set up their own effluent-treatment plants in their factory premises, while some of them have not. The High Court, by an order made on 17-4-1995, directed that the chemical industries in Nandesari should be made parties to the proceedings; thereby 252 industrial units located in Nandesari Industrial Estate, Baroda were made parties to the proceedings, apart from the State of Gujarat, the Central Pollution Control Board, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Nandesari Industries Association. The High Court also issued notices to financial institutions or Banks in respect of these proceedings.

(2.) On 5-5-1995 the High Court appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. V. V. Modi to ascertain the position with regard to the extent of pollution in Nandesari Industrial Estate. A common effluent-treatment plant (C.E.T.P.) was erected by G.I.D.C. in Nandesari Industrial Estate on the contribution made by the industrial units in Nandesari Industrial Estate to the extent of about Rs. 300/- lakhs. Inasmuch as C.E.T.P. was not achieving the required parameters laid down by G.P.C.B., the High Court, by an order made on 7-8-1996, appointed N.E.E.R.I. as a consultant to assess the treatment facilities and to provide suitable rectification measures for upgrading C.E.T.P. and effluent-treatment plant facilities. Dr. Modi Committee made a report on 7-9-1996. The High Court restrained several industries from removing their products from their plant without prior permission of the High Court, and thereafter, by an order made on 13-9-1996, the High Court permitted them to dispatch materials by depositing a certain sum of money which was the value of the materials. N.E.E.R.I, submitted its report on 31-10-1996. The High Court, while granting permission to some of the industries to carry on their activities, called for turnover figures and profitability data. On 9-5-1997 the High Court passed an order directing the industries to pay 1% of the maximum annual turnover of any of the preceding three years towards compensation and betterment of environment within a stipulated time. It is against this order that the appellants are before us.

(3.) The High Court in its impugned order followed a decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Pravinbhai Jashbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (2) GLR 1210, wherein it was noticed that the industrial units though aware of the requirements of law had not complied with the same nor did they meet the G.P.C.B., parameters and they were irresponsible in not wanting or caring to set up effluent-treatment plants, but continued to manufacture, and pollute the environment and the concern shown now in meeting with the pollution-control norms is only because of the threatened Court order; that pollution caused by these industrial units was adversely affecting a large number of citizens residing in the adjacent cities or villages; that in particular water and air pollution is not only continued in the immediate area in which the pollution is generated, but the same affects other areas as well wherever water or air went; that this Court in M. C Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 (4) SCC 463 : AIR 1988 SC 1037, Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 577, and Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, 1995 (3) SCC 42 : AIR 1995 SC 922, invoked the provisions of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India to declare that the citizens have a fundamental right to live decently, unaffected by pollution. After noticing various contentions, the High Court took the view that 1% of the turnover would be a good measure of assessing damages for the pollution caused by the industrial units and that amount should be kept apart by the Ministry of Environment and should be utilised for the works of socio-economic upliftment of the population of the aforesaid affected areas and for the betterment of educational, medical and veterinary facilities and the betterment of the agriculture and livestock in the said villages with certain additional directions in this regard.