Vijay Singh Punia Vs. Raj. State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution and Ors. Decided On: 07.03.2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)

This writ petition filled by way of a Public Interest Litigation seeking writ, order or direction against Rajasthan Pollution Control Board to take immediate steps against unauthorized factories and restrain them from discharging toxic wastes and effluents into the canal and land and secondly to direct the concerned authority to check the raising of unauthorized construction of factories without compliance of the statutory provisions of Section 25 of the Act of 1975 and impose penalties on the factories found violating statutory provisions.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, since they allegedly failed to implement the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, "the Act") and to check the construction and growth of the unauthorized factories, responsible for discharging toxic wastes and effluents into the canal and on land.

 It is pointed out in the petition that several unauthorised industries/factories carrying on business of dyeing and printing of cloth have been set up. According to the petitioner, the effluents produced by these industries are reaching the dam through canal and are causing serious health hazards and irreparable injury to the environment, man and animals etc.

     Pursuant to the notice issued in the writ petition, the Rajasthan State Board for the Prevention and Control of Pollution  in its reply stated to the effect that it is tackling enormous task of controlling discharge from all-over Rajasthan. It is also asserted that due to untiring efforts of the Board a Common Effluent Treatment Plant (for short, "CETP") was constructed, in Pali which was to take care of treatment of ten million gallons of effluent from various textile units of Pali which according to Board was the most problematic area. In so far as the problem of discharge of effluent in the canal, by the printing units, is concerned, the Board alludes to the fact that a survey was conducted by the Board which revealed that around 240 dyeing and printing units are working in Sanganer and that none of the industries in Sanganer, has installed an effluent treatment plant.

After reply of the respondent the Court, on 20.9.95, passed an order, directing respondents to issue suitable orders to the industries, to obtain permission from the Pollution Control Board, within 45 days from the passing of the said order and in case, the factories set up failed to produce the required permission before the respondents, they should restrain the factories from operating.

After the aforesaid direction, the Sanganer Kapda Rangai & Chhapai Association (for short, "the Association"), felt threatened and filed its reply where it submitted that the entire dyeing and printing units are home industries, which were established hundreds of years back. These industries are providing jobs to lakhs of people, who were not having any source of income, except from these small units. In their reply they denied the fact that the units were discharging any effluent from its premises into any stream, sewer, well or on land.

However, In compliance with the order of the Court the respondent filed an affidavit stating the action taken by it in pursuant thereof. Where by it stated that it has identified 86 units operating without the consent of the Pollution Control Board to whom they have issued notices under Section 25 of the Act directing to forthwith apply for consent applications. On receiving the applications, the board rejected the application of 42 units situated in the polluted area on the ground that none of the units had pollution control plant, for treating the effluents.

On action being taken by  the Pollution Control Board, "the Association" filed an affidavit claiming that a meeting was held between the representatives of the Pollution Control Board and members of the Association, with regard to the problem of pollution whereby it was accepted by the Pollution Control Board that due to inadequacies of spaces and cost-factor in setting up individual effluent treatment plants, the only workable and realistic solution was setting up by Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO), or by other State agencies, of a central effluent treatment plant (CETP). Pursuant to the meeting a representation was made by the association to the Minister for Industries and Deputy Chief Minister, Rajasthan wherein it was requested that developmental work be undertaken in industrial area for ensuring all-round improved environment. The demand for CETP was also reiterated in the same. Afterwards a meeting was held amongst the members of the Association, Minister for Industries, Deputy Chief Minister and the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board. The Chairman, Pollution Control Board, suggested that a survey be conducted, by NEERI, to study the level of pollution in the area and that an environmental policy be also formulated, for future. Accordingly a survey was conducted by NEERI. Depending on this survey a report was prepared in which it was suggested a Pukka drain be built and a CETP be constructed by the State Government. Besides, it was suggested that the units be allotted plots in a separate zone, after the same is developed by the RIICO. The report also made recommendations to the effect that concrete steps be taken in developing dyeing and printing industry, which had contributed substantially to the economy of Jaipur.

In the aforesaid affidavit, it is also pointed out that RIICO had announced setting up of an exclusive dyeing and printing sector, in its industrial estate in Shikarpur (Sanganer) and setting up of a CETP in the same industrial estate. The members of the Association were willing to shift to the new industrial area being set up by the RIICO and make payment at par with the dyers and printers of Pali, for setting up the CETP. It is also stated in the affidavit that it is the responsibility of RIICO to provide combined effluent treatment in its industrial areas but that nothing worthwhile has happened.

Having set out the stands, taken by the appellant, Pollution Control Board; and the Association, the court considered that ‘there is  no doubt left in our minds that effluents are being discharged by the dyeing and printing units, which are polluting the water sources, used for agriculture and drinking purposes. Neither the Association, nor the RIICO has taken any concrete steps, to prevent pollution. The action taken by the Board pursuant to the court order has not improved the situation, at all. It is also true that the Association had been representing for development of an industrial area, for allotment of land and for setting up of a common effluent treatment plant, but, nothing worthwhile has happened. That the pollution, caused by the aforesaid industrial units, is certainly affecting the quality of drinking water and the vegetables, produced by the farmers, using the water of the canal for irrigation purposes. The vegetables so produced are consumed by human beings resulting into a number of health hazards As such while the industry is contributing to the economy of the State, at the same time, it is destroying the environment.

The court also made an observation that it is the fundamental right of the citizens to have pollution-free environment. Though, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, ensures right of freedom to trade and commerce, at the same time, this freedom is not an absolute one and is subject to reasonable restrictions. Any trade, or business, which is destructive of the health of the citizens, cannot be allowed to be carried on, under the banner of fundamental right.

The Court pointed out six wholesome principles that can be culled out from Articles 21; 48-A; and 51-A (g) of the Constitution and various judicial pronouncements :-

(1) All human beings have the fundamental right to unpolluted environment, pollution-free water and air.

(2) That State is obligated to preserve and protect the environment.

(3) It is mandatory for the State and its agencies, to conceive, anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradations.

(4) The industry cannot be permitted to continue, as a matter of right, in case it creates pollution.

(5) The polluter must meet the cost of repairing environment and ecology and pay reparation to those, who have suffered be caused of the pollution, caused by him.

(6) Considerations of economy cannot prevail over concerns for environment and ecology.

Keeping in view aforesaid legal position the court directed as below :-

(1) RIICO shall develop an industrial area for dyeing and printing industry, within a period of eight months. Location of the area shall be identified and plans finalized within two months.

(2) The owners and proprietors of the present industrial outfits shall be given plots in the industrial area, for which, they shall pay the price, as determined by RIICO, at no-profit no-loss basis.

(3) Each of the printing and/or dyeing units shall pay the pollution-fine as prescribed by the court. 

(4) Each of the units, within one month, shall deposit minimum pollution-fine of Rs. 20,000/- with RIICO. The balance amount, depending upon the turnover, shall be paid to RIICO, within two months. In case, pollution fine is not paid within time, the defaulting unit shall be sealed by the respondents.