LAWS(MPH)-1993-2-57

BAYER INDIA LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 24, 1993
Bayer India Ltd. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order made on February 6,1991 this Court (Rangannath Misra, C. J., M. H. Kania and Kuldip Singh, JJ.) disposed of Civil Appeal No. 578 of 1991 directing the appellants (applicants herein) to file a petition in the Bombay High Court seeking review of the order impugned in the said appeal. It was directed that if such a review petition is filed within the period prescribed, "the hearing of the review application will not be confined to the normal ground on which review can be sought but the entire controversy will be regarded as open as between the appellants herein and the respondent." It was further directed that "the interim order made by this Court on January 8,1991 will continue to remain in operation till the review petition is decided by the High Court. However, it will be open for the High Court to vary or vacate the interim order on appropriate applications made to it by any of the parties or by any of the intervenors here ..... in our opinion the review petition deserves to be disposed of with expedition and we would, therefore, request the High Court to dispose of the review petition, if filed as aforestated, within four months from today and in any event by September 30, 1991." The matter was directed to be posted before the learned Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for making appropriate directions. The appellants have now come forward with this application complaining that while not disposing of the review petition filed by them till now, the High Court has, under the orders impugned herein, directed the Municipal Corporation of city of Thane and the State of Maharashtra "to implement the order dated November 29, 1990 in Writ Petition No. 5189 of 1990 on or before January 15, 1993 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides." Under the order dated November 29, 1990 the Bombay High Court had quashed the communication of the respondent -Corporation dated January 9, 1990 and directed the Corporation to "consider revalidation on he petitioner's plan sanctioned on August 11, 1989 vide commencement certificate Ex. B to the petition in accordance with law without taking into consideration the reasons mentioned in the said communication dated January 9, 1990 Ex.C to the petition within eight weeks from today." In short, the effect of the order is that it directs the Corporation to revalidate the plans submitted by Shri Sai Baba Construction Company and certain other persons (petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5189 of 1990) which were sanctioned earlier on August 11, 1989 but which came to naught by virtue of the communication dated January 9, 1990.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the dispute is this: The appellants are manufacturers of chemicals and drugs. They have their factories within the limits of Thane municipality. At the time these factories were established there were no residential buildings anywhere near these factories. In course of time, however, many builders and other private persons have come forward to construct buildings in the vicinity of these factories. The appellant -applicants say that hazardous substances and gases are stored and utilised in the said factories and that the danger of an explosion or a leak like the one that took place in Bhopal in 1984, cannot be ruled out. If any such accident happens it may lead to greater damage to human life than at Bhopal. To guard against any such eventuality, they say that within a radius of one kilometre, no residential buildings s40lildbe allowed to be constructed. It is on this basis that had come to this Court in Civil Appeal No. 578 of 1991 and it was this submission which this Court requested the Bombay High Court to consider in the review petition filed by the applicants.

(3.) WE are saddened to notice that in spite of the Court's request contained in this order dated February 6, 1991 the High Court has not disposed of the review petition till now. The High Court was requested to dispose of the said writ petition within four months from the date of the said order and, at any rate, by September 30, 1991. It is more than two years since the order was made. While we certainly respect the independence of the High Court and recognise that it is a co -equal institution, we cannot but say, at the same time, that the constitutional scheme and judicial discipline requires that the High Court should give due regard to the orders of this Court which are binding on all Courts within the terrority of India. The request made in this case was contained in a judicial order. It does no credit to either institution that it has not been heeded to. We hope and trust that the delay in the disposal of the review is either accidental or on account of some or other procedural problem. Be that as it may, the present situation would not have arisen if only the review petition had been disposed of within the time contemplated in the order dated February 6, 1990. We cannot also reject out of hand the contention of the appellants -applicants that the order dated December 18, 1992 in Civil Application No. 5929 of 1992 in Writ Petition No. 5189 of 1990 tends to make the review infructuous: if constructions are allowed to come up within a one -kilometre radius before the review petition is disposed of, the review petition even if allowed, would be of little effect. In this view of the matter, the I. A. is disposed of with the following directions: