RAJINDER KRISHAN KHANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners complain that the discharge of effluents and the emission of pollutants from the factory run by the National Fertilizers Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) has caused damage to their agricultural land and residential houses. They pray that the said respondent be directed to "lose the Plant" till adequate arrangements for the disposal of pollutants and effluents are made and "to pay the damages of Rs. one crore for the destruction of residential houses crops and mango garden." It has been further prayed that Respondent No. 2 may also be directed to reclaim the agricultural land of the petitioners which has been rendered unfit for cultivation." A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) PETITIONER Nos. 1 to 5 have a farm, a house tubewell and agricultural land measuring about 30 acres in village Gaddiwara. Petitioner Nos. 6 to 39 state that they "are very poor people and have constructed residential houses" in Raj Nagar, village Gaddiwara which is within the Municipal Limits of Panipat. Respondent No. 2 set up a plant in Panipat for manufacture of 'Urea.' According to the petitioners, the effluent containing various chemicals and ash was originally released into a pond. The water was absorbed by the earth and the ash got deposited thereon. Instead of making arrangement for the disposal of ash. Respondent No. 2 started" raising the height of Kacha Bundh....."On account of excessive pressure of the effluents and accumulation of ash, the bundh collapsed on December 1. 1984. As a result, the crops on the entire land including the Mango Garden, were repeatedly flooded. Even the fish, which had been kept in a pond by petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 died. The crops were badly damaged. Petitioner No. 1 filed a Civil Suit No. 1128 of 1985 in the Court as Sub Judge 1st Class Panipat. The petitioners ha to spend a huge amount of money for removal of ash at their own expense. There were successive breaches in June 1986, March 1987. July 1987, July 1988, November 1990 and August 1991. Extensive damage was caused to the property of the petitioners. Since the efforts to persuade Respondent No. 2 to take suitable remedial measures had borne no fruit, petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 filed a suit for Permanent Injunction in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Panipat on December 5, 1990. The petitioners filed an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. A copy of the report submitted by the Local Commissioner has been produced on record as Annexure P -4. According to the report, the petitioners' land had been rendered unfit for cultivation. Even the residential houses were affected and the petitioners had to vacate the residential houses and the farm house. The petitioners then approached the Central Soil and Material Research Station, Hauz Khas, New Delhi for testing the soil. Their request was declined on the ground that the test could be conducted "only at the direction of the Central Government." Petitioner No. 1 then approached the Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research for having the effluents tested. However, it was disclosed to the petitioner that the National Fertilizers, Panipat had also engaged the Institute. As such, it gave up its efforts to have the effluents tested through the Shri Ram Institute. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Indian Agricultural Research Institute and got the soil tested. This institute reported that the land shall have to be reclaimed before it could be fit for cultivation. Since the quality of land had already suffered and the efforts to save the environment from pollution had been defeated, petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 withdraw the suit for permanent injunction. They, however, complained to the officers of Respondent No. 2 as well as to various other authorities including the Prime Minister of India. In the meantime respondent No. 2 made a drain for discharging the effluents in village Dahar. However, the sludge of burnt ash blocked the drain. In the process the agricultural land of the petitioners has beet rendered uncultivable. The petitioners aver that the process of manufacturing fertilizer involves hazardous processes and the wastes contain a variety of substance and chemicals. Accordingly, the petitioners submit that the plant installed by Respondent No. 2 deserves to be closed as it is a threat to the environment, causes damages to the properties of the petitioners and is dangerous for the life of the inhabitants. The petitioners have produced various documents including photographs to support their claim.

(3.) A separate written statement has also been filed on behalf of the pollution Control Board, Respondent No. It has been inter -alia averred that the said respondent has been wrongly impleaded as a party and that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.