HOMERA TANNING INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application seeking impleadment in the writ petition has been filed by Ganga Sewa Abhiyanam, a non -Government organization, Swami Shri Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, national convener of Ganga Sewa Abhiyanam and Sri Ratnesh Kant Agnihotri, a practicing advocate of this Court and also member of National Ganga Sewa Abhiyanam and its in -charge of Lucknow Parliamentary Constituency. Sri Hari Shanker Jain, learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that Ganga Sewa Abhiyanam has been established with the object to ensure that holy Ganga is saved from pollution and contamination and further to ensure that contaminated and polluted water is not discharged in the said river. He also states that Ganga Sewa Abhiyanam is committed to save river Ganga from various kinds of pollutants such as waste material discharged from tanneries and other poisonous and hazardous chemicals and substances discharged from the industries and factories. He has further submitted that in view of the object of applicants, they may be added as opposite parties to the writ petition so that all the relevant facts may be brought on record and justice be done to the masses who believe in purity of Ganga in national interest. He also states that since citizens of this country worship Ganga and hence, in the circumstances disclosed in the application, applicants may be allowed to be impleaded as opposite parties.

(2.) SRI Jain, learned Counsel for the applicants has also submitted that the Court has the discretion either to allow the application and implead the applicants as opposite parties or to reject the same and allow the applicants to be heard in the matter as intervener. Sri Jain has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another : AIR 1963 SC 786. He has also placed reliance on two other judgments in support of his contention, namely, : (2012) 8 SCC 384 and : (2009) 12 SCC 280.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on the cases of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others : (1992) 2 SCC 524, Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasa Guru : (1995) 3 SCC 147, Muthavalli of Sha Madhari Dizvan Wakf, S.J. Syed Zakrudeen and another v. Syed Zindasha and others : 2009 (77) AIC 197 (SC) : (2009) 12 SCC 280 : 2009 (75) ALR 476 (SC) : 2009 (107) RD 200 (SC) and Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others : 2010 (93) AIC 173 (SC) : (2010) 7 SCC 417 : 2010 (82) ALR 229 (SC) : 2010 (111) RD 189 (SC) has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicants for their impleadment and their intervention in the case at hand. His submission, in nutshell, is that under challenge in this writ petition is an order passed by the Central Pollution Control Board under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and further that the Central Government (in this case Central Pollution Control Board as its delegatee) exercises its power to issue directions to any person in exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under the said Act. Thus, in a dispute where an order envisaged under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is to be passed, the matter remains between the person concerned to whom the order is to be issued and the Central Government (in this case Central Pollution Control Board), hence no third person with a cause, howsoever laudable it may be, can be permitted to be either impleaded or to intervene. Further submission of Sri Mathur is that the proceedings which culminated in the impugned order being passed by the Pollution Control Board are the subject -matter of instant writ petition wherein a judicial review of the procedure adopted by the Central Pollution Control Board in relation to certain alleged violations of environmental norms by the petitioner -industry are in question, hence no third party can be permitted to be heard.