Holding

Matters involving greater public interest cannot be decided merely on the consent of the Pollution Control Board; the High Court's order was set aside and the case remanded for fresh disposal.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition concerning the discharge of objectionable effluents from Sakthi Sugars Ltd.'s distillery into the Bhavani River, which had become a health and environmental hazard. The High Court had dismissed the petition solely on the consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, a decision the Supreme Court found inappropriate for matters of significant public interest. The Court held that reliance on the Pollution Control Board's consent, without a thorough judicial inquiry, could not stand, and therefore set aside the High Court's order. It remanded the case to the High Court for fresh disposal, directing it to consider the reports of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and to monitor the situation closely. The Supreme Court also ordered the closure of the industry's operations by a specified date, mandated inspection and restitution, and directed costs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of disposing a writ petition on the sole consent of the Pollution Control Board in cases of public interest.
Whether the discharge of effluents by Sakthi Sugars Ltd. violates the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
The necessity of ordering closure of the industrial operations to prevent further pollution.
The liability for restitution and costs arising from environmental damage caused by the industry.

Legislation cited

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

Subjects

environmental lawwater pollutionpublic interest litigationpollution control boardindustrial dischargerestitutionSupreme Courtappeal

Judgment

RE: BHAYANI RIVER-SAKTHI SUGARS LTD. A

JULY 30, 1998

[DR. A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.]

• B
Environmental Pollution :-

• Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

Bhavani River-Pollution-Discharge of objectional effluents from
distillery into the River and adjoining areas-High Court disposing of writ c
petition
I
on consent of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board_:_Held, matters
involving greater public interest should not normally be decided merely ·on
consent of Pollution Control Board-The manner in which Pollution Control
Board gave its consent unmindful of grave consequences depricated-Order
a/High Court set aside-Matter remanded to High Court for fresh disposal
in accordance with law and the directions given by this Court-High Court D
would consider the reports and suggestions of NEERJ and would decide
'
• whether the Industry may be permitted to have a test run-High Court would
monitor the case till such time as is considered necessary by it.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3564 of
E
1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.97 of the Madras High Court
in W.P.No. 17333 of1995.

Harish N. Salve, K.K. Venugopal, R. Mohan, S. Muralidhar, P.H. Parekh, F
Ms. V. Mohana, Ms. Sunita Sharma, C. Paramasivam, Rakesh K. Sharma and
V.G. Pragasam for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. G
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a Division
).
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 17333
of 1995 dated 17th July, 1997.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record H
929
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A we are satisfied that the matter before the High Court was one of public
interest and required an in-depth examination by the Court. The Division
Bench of the High Court, it appears to us, failed to appreciate the true "'
significance of the matter regarding the need to arrest the unabated pollution,
which had become a health hazard and environmental enemy because of
discharge of objectionable effluents from the distillery into Bhavani River
B and adjoining areas. The High Court fell in error to dispose of the writ petition
merely on the consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Matters like
..
this, which involve greater public interest should rtot normally be decided
merely on consent of the Pollution Control Board. We are somewhat unhappy
about the manner in which the Pollution Control Board gave its consent
unmindful of the grave consequences, which have been amply demonstrated
c before us. The order of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. We,
accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court
and remand the writ petition to it for its fresh disposal in accordance with
law.

During the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, certain affidavits
D and undertakings were filed on behalf of the industry, respondent No. 6, and
on 29th January, 1998 we gave certain directions including the direction for
the closure of the operation of the Industry (respondent No.6) on or before
2nd February, 1998 because of continuing pollution from its distillery and
sugar division. We also directed inspection of the industry and the site adjacent
E to it by NEERI, who was also asked to submit a report to this Court whether
the pollution control devices have been installed by the Industry and proper
steps taken to control pollution in accordance with the provisions of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter Act) or
not. NEERI was also directed to inspect the surrounding areas with a view
to assess damage, caused due to discharge of effluent by the Industry and to
F indicate the cost of restitution.

Pursuant to the directions issued by us on 29th January, 1998, NEERI
has submitted two reports. The first inspection report was submitted on 9th
March, 1998 and the second on 1st May, 1998. We have perused those reports
and since we are remanding the writ petition to the High Court for its disposal,
G it appears appropriate to us, to request the High Court to consider those
reports and the suggestions made therein while passing orders in the Writ
Petition from time to time.
..._
Mr. Venugopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Industry,
submits that remedial steps have already been taken as suggested by this
H Court as well as by NEERI and that Pollution Control Devices have been fixed
RE: BHAVANI RIVER-SHAKTI SUGARS LTD. 931
and effective steps taken to prevent pollution of water and the Industry may, A
therefore, be pennitted to operate.

Mr. Harish Salve, learned amicus curiae on the other hand submits that
all steps required to check pollution have not been taken and in support of
his submission, relies upon the two reports submitted by NEERl to this Court.

The High Court may, therefore:
B

I. Consider in consultation with NEERl, whether the Industry may
be permitted to have a test run or become operational and, if so, with
what further safeguards and/or remedial measures to be taken. For this
purpose NEERl shall appear before the High Court of Madras and C
infonn the Court regarding the viability of the Industry starting either
the test run or its operation. The High Court may, thereafter, pass
appropriate orders regarding the lifting of the ban on operations
which was imposed by this Court on 26.1.J 998.

2. The High Court may also direct supervision by any of the agencies D
, including NEER! or the Pollution Control Board, with a view to see
that the Industry does not cause any type of pollution, in case it is
pennitted to become operational.

3. The High Court shall also examine the question of restitution of the
areas damaged on account to the pollution already caused. The costs E
of the pollution already caused. The costs of the restitution shall be
borne by M/s. Sakthi Sugars Ltd., Tamil Nadu, for which NEERl was
requested to submit its report.

4. The High Court shall monitor the case till such time as is considered
necessary by it . F
The High Court may appoint amicus curiae to assist it for disposal of
the case and burden the Industry with such costs as it may deem fit.

7 The parties, through their learned counsel are directed to appear before
the High Court on 6th August, 1998. NEER! shall also be requested to
appear before the High Court on the same date to give its opinion on technical
matters regarding the operational viability of the Industry.
G

In so for as the costs in this Court are concerned, learned amicus curiae,
Mr. Harish Salve assisted by Mr. S. Muralidhar submit that the costs may be
paid to the Supreme Court legal Services Committee. We appreciate the gesture H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A show by the learned counsel. We also wish to place on record our appreciation
for the assistance rendered by Mr.Harish Salve, Senior Advocate and
Mr.S.Muralidhar in this Court.

The Industry Mis. Sakthi Sugars Ltd., Tamil Nadu shall pay a sum of
Rs. 20,000 by way of costs, which shall be deposited in the account of the
B Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within one week.

The Registry shall transmit the complete record of the case to the High ..
Court without any delay. The record may be sent by courier for which the
expenses shall be borne by respondent No. 6.

C R.P. Appeal dismissed.