Ecology - Approval based on Government Policy to permit only certain number of industries to operate having regard to availability or raw material Khair Trees significance of forest wealth and its impact on environment and ecology and the enactment's concerned. Valid.
There are several Central and State Acts having crucial bearing on the establishment and running of forest based industries. Manufacture of Katha requires cutting of Khair trees. Only the central portion of the trunk of the tree is used for the manufacture of Khatha and the rest is of no use except perhaps as firewood. The more the number of trees, the more pressure there will be for cutting these trees. Himachal Pradesh is a hill state. The consideration of forest and ecology and preservation of forest wealth are absolutely relevant consideration, which the Government must keep in mind while devising its policies and programs. [State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ganesh Wood Products and others. JT 1995(6) SC 485 = (1995) 6 SCC 363.B.P.Jeevan Reddy & M.K.Mukherjee. {JJ}.]
Fundamental right - Establishment of meat processing unit-Grant of license by Govt. -Possible violation of the Act-Not a ground for interference.
Conflict between the sentiments of a section of the public on the one hand and the Fundamental Rights of an industrial undertaking which incidentally promotes national interest. The Project can make significant contributions to national interest by providing employment and earning much needed for foreign exchange as also providing staple food to those needy and poor. Petition rejected.[ Smt. Satyavan and another Vs A.P.Pollution Control Board. AIR 1993 AP 257 V.Sivaraman Nair & Ms.S.V.Maruthi {JJ}. Dated 6th April 1993]
Industries -Pollution caused - Amenable to writ jurisdiction -Cannot be said to be not maintainable on the ground that private companies are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Since the chemical industries are the main culprits in the matter of polluting the environment, there is every need for scrutinizing their establishment and functioning more rigorously. No distinction should be made in this behalf a large-scale industry and a small-scale industry or for that matter between a large-scale and a medium-scale industry. All chemical industries, whether big or small, should be allowed to be established only after taking into considerations all the environmental aspects and their functioning should be monitored closely to ensure that they do not pollute the environment around them. It appears that most of these industries are water - intensive industries. If so, the advisability of allowing the establishment of these industries in the said areas may also require examination. Even existing chemical industries may be subjected to such study and if it is found on such scrutiny that it is necessary to take any steps in the interests of environment, appropriate directions in that behalf May be issued under Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment Protection Act.
Even if it is assumed that Supreme Court cannot award damages against private companies responsible for causing pollution in proceedings under Article 32 that does not mean that Supreme Court cannot direct the Central Government to determine and recover the cost of remedial measures from private companies. The Central Government is empowered to take all measures and issue all such directions as are called for the purpose of the Act.
The rule laid down in Olem Gas Leak case (AIR 1987 SC 1086), namely that once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the persons carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity is by far the more appropriate one and binding. [Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India.(1996)3 SCC 212= JT 1996(2) SC 196 = AIR 1996 SC 1446 B.P.Jeevan Reddy and B.N.Kirpal.JJ.]
Industry causing pollution - Cashew processing factory causing pollution in the neighboring area - No consent from the Pollution Control Board - Disobedience of directions from the Pollution Control Board.
The Court directed the authorities that to see that the Cashew Factory shall not run the factory unless the directions contained in the report submitted by the Pollution Control Board are carried out. [M.R.Pillai vs. Executive Officer, Pathiyoor Panchayath. AIR 1997 Ker 162 . J.B.Koshy {J}.]
Industrial unit causing pollution - Report of Local Commissioner and Engineer of Pollution Control Board - Accepted and final orders made.
Industrial unit alleged to be causing pollution in air and water. Report of Local Commissioner and Engineer of Pollution Control Board showing that no objectionable pollution in air or water was being caused by the said Industry. Report not controverted by the petitioners. Direction for the closure of the industry is not proper. [ Shastri Nagar-Kanchghar vs State of Haryana. AIR 1997 P& H 172 = 1997(1) Cur LJ (CCR) 292 = ILR 1997 (1) P&H 67 = 1996(3) Rec Civ R 279. Jawahar Lal Gupta & M.L.Koul {JJ}]
Industry - Closure - Thickly populated area is noot a sufficient ground - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 . Water (Prevention and Control) of Pollution Act, 1974 - Opportunity of being heard.
Refusal of the consent to for the continuation of the unit on the ground that factory is located in thickly populated area and there is a public complaint is not proper. Refusal is the discretion of the State Pollution Control Board and it is not for Court to go into propriety of reason and substitute its opinion in place of decision of the State Board. [ M/s. Mahabir Soap and Gudakhu Factory vs Union of India. AIR 1995 Oris 218 . D.P.Mohapatra & S.K.Mohanty . {JJ}]
Industrial unit – Direction to closure without giving an opportunity – Not proper.
Direction to closure of industry without giving an opportunity for explanation . Consent was not obtained for the reason that the industry started its operation before the commencement of the Act. No opportunity was given to the unit even to apply for consent – Impugned order quashed. [ M/s. Jadar Soap Works vs . Union of India. AIR 2000 Guj 43 .K.Sreedharan (CJ) & A.R.Dave (J) ]