V S DAMODARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issues involved in these original petitions are of great importance viewed from any angle, the matter was referred, according to the learned Judge, to be decided by a Bench of this Court by order dated 15-2-1991. Therefore, the matter was posted before the Division Bench.

(2.) O. P. No. 6041 of 1981 was filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to constitute a committee of experts to study the reasons for the poisonous fog formation in Cochin City and to suggest remedial measures. Learned single Judge by order dated 26-2-1986 directed the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to investigate the air pollution within the city and surrounding areas and further called for reports from NEERI for any remedial measures and specifications envisaged for preventing air pollution. The NEERI submitted their final report on 29-8-1990. The learned single Judge by order dated 21-12-1990 after considering the final report of the NEERI and objections filed by the respondents issued further directions in the matter. These directions were issued to the Central Government and the Central Pollution Control Board, State Government and the various other industries in regard to the implementation of the standards prescribed by the expert committee. As these directions were not carried out, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 28-2-1992 issued notice to the State Pollution Control Board. There was a further direction to the Central Pollution Control Board to show cause why action should not be taken, under the Contempt of Courts Act and further directed the Central and State Governments to file necessary information or counters in relation to the formation of green belt activity recommended by the expert body. After the statements having been filed, the above original petitions have been finally posted for disposal before us. The public interest litigation (O.P. No. 6041 of 1981) was instituted with a view to ensure healthy living and eradication of air pollution even though initially the provocation was the formation of fog in the city of Cochin. The scope of the writ petition was expanded by impleading industries and departments which were suspected to be the cause for the air pollution within the city and the adjoining areas of the city. An expert body like NEERI was entrusted with the work of study of the air pollution. Before the final stage of this report came into existence, two writ petitions linked with the problems involved in the larger reliefs had been filed and the Court delayed the execution of the directions passed by the learned single Judge. Ultimately NEERI has filed the final report on 29-8-1990. Objections were filed by the industries in detail against the report of the NEERI. The main findings and recommendations of the NEERI as contained in page 216 of the report are as follows:

(3.) Respondents 2, 10 and 12 have filed their statement of objections in respect of the report filed by NEERI. In that it has been stated that the report filed by NEERI will be considered in the light of standards and limits set out in the book Air Pollution', edited by Arthur C. Stern. The standards were laid down for the United States by OSHA for various gases. The Indian Standards Code of safety for Ammonia gives in "Effects of various concentrations of Ammonia in Air". The statement further proceeds to state that certain very high figures which may be noticed occasionally should be ignored from consideration, as these happen generally only in such abnormal circumstances which are not common and for short duration. They also object to the testing being done from the Soil Testing Laboratory area. They also object to the dealing with the process with a plant which was scrapped as early as in 1985. It is stated that no industrial operation can discharge fresh air and fresh water in the environment. If the industries are to be established to raise the standard of living and make goods available to the people, certain pollution of environment may not be avoidable. The question, therefore, is of the degree up to which pollution could be tolerated in the larger interest without causing any harm. It is admitted that the industry, however, should try to use the best technology to come up to such standards to control pollution of environment. It is further admitted that no readymade solutions are always available for all instances and their development takes time. If a solution is found, its implementation requires finance and time. Finally the counter states that the Company is in no way responsible for any of the complaints raised in the writ petition.