http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 25  

PETITIONER: M.C. MEHTA & ANR. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/02/1986

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) MADON, D.P. OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  965            1986 SCR  (1) 312  1986 SCC  (2) 176        1986 SCALE  (1)199  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1987 SC 982  (1)

ACT:      Public Interest  Litigation and environment law - Power of the  Supreme Court  to interfere  under Article 32 of the Constitution to  permit the  restarting of  caustic chlorine plant and  under what conditions explained - Constitution of Environment Court,  need for - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)  Act, 1974,  Air (Prevention  and  Control  of Pollution) Act,  1981 section  40(2) of  Factories Act, 1948 section 430(3)  Delhi Municipal  Corporation Act,  1957  and section 133(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

HEADNOTE:      Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., a public limited company having its registered  in Delhi  runs an  enterprise called Shriram Foods and  Fertilizer Industries,  which has  several  units engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  caustic  soda,  chlorine, hydrochloric acid,  stable bleaching powder, superphosphate, vanaspati,  soap,  sulphuric  acid,  alum  anhydrous  sodium sulphate, high  test hypochlorite  and active  earth.  These various units are all set up in a single complex situated in approximately 76  acrea and  they are  surrounded by thickly populated colonies  such as  Punjabi Bagh, West Patel Nagar, Karampura, Ashok Vihar, Trinagar, Shastri Nagar and within a radius  of  3  kilometres  from  this  complex  there  is  a population of  approximately 200,000.  The caustic  chlorine plant was  commissioned in  the  year  1949  and  it  has  a strength  of  about  263  employees’  including  executives, supervisors, staff and workers.      In the  wake of  the Bhopal  gas tragedy  realising the hazardous character  of caustic  chlorine plant  of Shriram, the Labour  Ministry of the Government of India commissioned "Technica", a  firm of consultants, Scientists and Engineers of the  United Kindgom  who set out the areas of concern and potential problems,  in their  Report. Thereafter, the Delhi Administration constituted  an Expert  Committee  under  the Chairmanship of Mr. Manmohan Singh. This Committee made 313 various recommendations  in regard  to safety  and pollution control measures  with a  view to  minimising hazard  to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 25  

workmen and the public.      On December  4, 1985, a major leakage of oleum gas took place from  one of  the units  of Shri  Ram and this leakage affected a large number of persons, both amongst the workmen and the  public and an Advocate practising in the Tis Hazari Court died  on account  of inhalation  of  oleum  gas.  This leakage resulted  from the  bursting of  the tank containing oleum gas  as a  result of  the collapse of the structure on which it  was mounted  and it  created a  scare amongst  the people residing  in that area. Hardly had the people got out of the shock of this disaster, when within two days, another leakage, though this time a minor one took place as a result of escape  of oleum  gas from  the joints  of  a  pipe.  The immediate response  of the Delhi Administration to these two leakages was  the making  of an order dated 6th December ’85 by the  District Magistrate  Delhi, under sub-section (1) of section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing and requiring Shriram  within two days from the date of issue of the  order   to  cease   carrying  on   the  occupation   of manufacturing and  processing hazardous and lethal chemicals and  gases   including   chlorine,   oleum,   superchlorine, phosphate etc.  at their establishment in Delhi and within 7 days to  remove such chemicals and gases from the said place and not  again to keep or store them at the same place or to appear  on  17th  December  85  in  the  Court  of  District Magistrate, Delhi  to show cause why the order should not be enforced. In the meantime, the "Agarwal Committee" appointed by the  Supreme Court visited the caustic chlorine plant and submitted  a   Report  in   which  it  pointed  out  various inadequacies in  the pland and expressed the opinion that it was not  possible to  eliminate hazard to the public so long as the plant remained at the present location.      Since there  were conflicting  opinions put  forward in regard to  the question  whether the  caustic chlorine plant should be allowed to be restarted without any real hazard or risk to  the workmen and the public at large, another Expert Committee called "Nilay Choudhary Committee" was constituted by the  Supreme Court,  by its order dated 18th December 85. This  Committee   visited  the  caustic  chlorine  plant  on December 28, 1985 and after considering Dr. Slater, Manmohan Singh Committee,  Agarwal Committee  and after  hearing  the parties 314 made a  report setting  out 14  recommendations which in its opinion were  required to be complied with by the management in order  to minimise  the hazards  due to possible chlorine leak.  The  Committee  also  pointed  out  that  it  was  in agreement with the recommendations made in the Report of the Manmohan Singh Committee which were exhaustive in nature and obviously the  recommendations made by it in its Report were supplementary recommendation  in addition to those contained in Manmohan Singh Committee’s Report.      In addition  to these  Committees, the  Lt. Governor of Delhi  also   appointed  an   Expert  Committee  called  the "Seturaman Committee"  which submitted  its  Report  on  3rd January, 1986.      While these proceedings were going on before the Court, an order  dated 7th  December 85 was issued by the Inspector of Factories, Delhi in exercise of the power conferred under section 40,  sub-section (2)  of the  Factories  Act,  1948, prohibiting  Shriram   from  using   caustic  chlorine   and sulphuric acid  plants till  adequate  safety  measures  are adopted and  imminent danger  to human  life is  eliminated. Soon thereafter,  on December  13, 1985  a show cause notice was issued  by the Assistant Commissioner (Factories) of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 25  

Municipal Corporation of Delhi, calling upon Shriram to show cause as  to why action for revocation of its licence should not be taken under section 430, sub-section (3) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation  Act, 1957  for violation of the terms and conditions  of the licence. Shriram showed cause, by its letter  dated   23rd  December’  85,  against  the  proposed cancellation of  its licence  but by  an  order  dated  24th December’  85,   the  Assistant   Commissioner   (Factories) directed Shriram  to stop  industrial use of the premises at which the  chlorine caustic  plant is located. The result is that unless  these two  orders - one dated 7th December 1985 and the  other dated  24th December  1985 -  are vacated  or suspended,  Shriram  cannot  restart  the  caustic  chlorine plant. Hence  the Shriram’s  Writ Petition  challenging  the said two orders.      Suspending the  operation of  the two orders ad-interim to enable  Shriram to  restart the plants for manufacture of caustic chlorine  including its  by products, the Court laid down as many as eleven conditions, and 315 ^      HELD: 1.  All Expert  Committees are unanimous in their view that  by adopting  proper and adequate safety measures, the element  of risk  to the workmen and the public can only be minimised,  but it  cannot  be  totally  eliminated.  The general concensus of opinion of all the Expert Committees is that relocation  of the  caustic chlorine  plant is the only long term  solution, if  hazard to  the community  is to  be completely eliminated.  Whether the  caustic chlorine  plant should be  directed to  be shifted  or relocated  at a place where there  will be  no hazard  to the community and if so, within what  time-frame, is  a question  which will  require serious consideration  and a National Policy will have to be evolved by the Government for location of toxic or hazardous industries and a decision will have to be taken in regard to relocation of  such industries  with a  view to  eliminating risk to  the community likely to arise from the operation of such industries. [325 B-D; 329 E-F]      1.2  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  chlorine  gas  is dangerous to  the life  and health  of the  community and it escapes either  from the  storage tanks  or from  the filled cylinders  or   from  any   other  point  in  the  cause  of production, it is likely to affect the health and well being of the  workmen and the people in the vicinity. Both Agarwal and Manmohan  Singh Committees  are agreed  to their opinion that  chlorine   is  a  hazardous  gas  and  though  smaller concentrations  of   chlorine  in  the  air  cause  only  an irritation and  coughing, longer  concentrations whether  25 parts per  million (PPM)  or 40  parts per million (PPM) are likely to  cause serious danger to life. However, in view of the Report  of yet  another Expert  Committee (consisting of Dr. Manmohan  Singh, Dr.  Sharma, Prof.  P.  Khanna  &  Shri Gharekhan) appointed for the purpose of ascertaining whether the various recommendations made in the earlier Reports were substantially  complied   with  or   not,  and  taking  into consideration that  even the  restarting of  the  Vanaspati, refined oil  plant and  recovery plants like soap, glycerine and technical  hard oil,  not involving  any health  hazard, cannot be possible unless the caustic chlorine plant is also restarted and  several other  factors including the power of the Board  to renew or not to renew consent orders under the Air Act and Water Act, the balance of convenience would tilt in favour  of Shriram  to be allowed to restart their plants subject to  certain stringent conditions. [330 G-H; 331 C-D; 337 D-H]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 25  

316      1.3  Since  cases  involving  issues  of  environmental pollution, ecological destruction and conflicts over natural resources are  increasingly coming  up for  adjudication and these cases  involve assessment  and evolution of scientific and  technical  data,  it  might  be  desirable  to  set  up Enviornment  Courts   on  the   regional  basis   with   one professional Judge and two experts drawn from the Ecological Sciences Research  Group keeping  in view  the nature of the case and  the expertise required for its adjudication. There would of  course be a right of appeal to this Court from the decision of the Environment Court. [345 H; 346 A-C]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  :  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  Nos. 12739 of 1985 and 26 of 1986.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)      Anil B.  Divan, Avadh  Bihari, Danial Latifi, B. Datta, Additional Solicitor  General,  M.C.  Mehta  (Petitioner-in- person), Ravinder  Narain,  S.  Kashwaha,  D.N.  Mishra,  S. Sukumaran of  J.B. Dadachanji & Co., Raju Ramachandran, R.D. Agarwala, C.V.S.  Rao, D.  Kashwaha, R.N.  Poddar, R. Mohan, B.P. Maheshwari, M.C. Dua, Ravinder Bana, A.K. Nauriya, R.S. Sodhi and Ms. Kitty Kumaramanglam for the appearing parties.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      BHAGWATI, C.J.  Writ Petition  No. 12739  of 1985 which has been brought by way of public interest litigation raises some seminal  questions concerning  the true scope and ambit of Arts.  21 and  32 of the Constitution, the principles and norms for  determining the  liability of  large  enterprises engaged in  manufacture and  sale of hazardous products, the basis on  which damages  in case of such liability should be quantified and  whether such  large  enterprises  should  be allowed to  continue to  function in thickly populated areas and if they are permitted so to function, what measures must be taken for the purpose of reducing to a minimum the hazard to  the   workmen  and   the   community   living   in   the neighbourhood. These questions which have been raised by the petitioner  are   questions  of   the  greatest   importance particularly since,  following upon  the leakage  of MIC gas from the  Union Carbide Plant in Bhopal, lawyers, judges and jurists are  considerably exercised  as  to  what  controls, whether by way of relocation or by way of 317 installation of  adequate safety devices, need to be imposed on Corporations employing hazardous technology and producing toxic or  dangerous substances  and if  any  liquid  or  gas escapes which  is injurious  to the  workmen and  the people living in the surrounding areas, on account of negligence or otherwise,  what   is  the   extent  of  liability  of  such Corporations and  what remedies can be devised for enforcing such liability with a view to securing payment of damages to the persons affected by such leakage of liquid or gas. These questions arise  in the  present case  since on  4th and 6th December, 1985,  there was  admittedly leakage  of oleum gas from one  of the  units  of  Shriram  Foods  and  Fertiliser Industries and  as a result of such leakage, several persons were affected  and according to the petitioner and the Delhi Bar Association,  one Advocate  practising in the Tis Hazari Courts died.  We propose to hear detailed arguments on these questions at  a later date. But one pressing issue which has to be  decided by  us immediately is whether we should allow the caustic  chlorine plant  of Shriram Foods and Fertiliser

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 25  

Industries to be restarted and that is the question which we are proceeding to decide in this judgment.      Delhi Cloth  Mills Ltd.  is a  public  limited  company having its registered office in Delhi. It runs an enterprise called Shriram  Foods and  Fertiliser  Industries  and  this enterprise has  several units  engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda,  chlorine, hydrochloric acid, stable bleaching powder, superphosphate,  vanaspati,  soap,  sulphuric  acid, alum anhydrous  sodium sulphate,  high test hypochlorite and active earth. These various units are all set up in a single complex situated  in approximately  76 acres  and  they  are surrounded by  thickly populated  colonies such  as  Punjabi Bagh, West  Patel Nagar,  Karampura, Ashok  Vihar, Tri Nagar and Shastri  Nagar and  within a redius of 3 kilometres from this complex  there is  population of approximately 200,000. We are  concerned  in  this  Order  only  with  the  caustic chlorine plant. This plant was commissioned in the year 1949 and it  has a  strength of  about  263  employees  including executives, supervisors,  staff and workers. It appears that until the  Bhopal tragedy,  no one neither the management of Shriram  Foods   and  Fertiliser   Industries   (hereinafter referred to  as ’Shriram’) not the Government seemed to have bothered at  all about  the hazardous  character of  caustic chlorine plant  of Shriram.  But, it  seems that  the Bhopal disaster shook of the lethargy of everyone and 318 triggered  off   a  new  wave  of  consciousness  and  every Government became  alerted to  the  necessity  of  examining whether  industries   employing  hazardous   technology  and producing dangerous  commodities were  equipped with  proper and  adequate  safety  and  pollution  control  devices  and whether they  posed  any  danger  to  the  workmen  and  the community living  around them.  The Labour  Ministry of  the Government of  India accordingly  commissioned ’Technica’, a firm of  Consultants, Scientists  and  Engineers  of  United Kingdom, to  visit the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram and make a  report  in  regard  to  the  areas  of  concern  and potential  problems  relating  to  that  plant.  Dr.  Slater visited the  caustic chlorine  plant on  behalf of  Technica sometime in  June-July 1985  and submitted  a report  to the Government of  India  summarising  the  initial  impressions formed during  his visit  and subsequent  dialogue with  the management  and  with  one  Mr.  Harries.  This  report  was admittedly not  an indepth  engineering study but it set out the preliminary  conclusions of  Dr. Slater in regard to the areas of  concern and  potential problems. We do not propose to rely  very much  on this report since it is a preliminary report.      It appears  that a  question was  raised in  Parliament sometime in March 1985 in regard to the possibility of major leakage of liquid chlorine from the caustic chlorine unit of Shriram and  of danger  to the lives of thousands of workers and others.  The Minister  of Chemicals  and Fertilizers, in answer to  this question,  stated in  the floor of the House that the  Government of  India was  fully conscious  of  the problem of  hazards from  dangerous and  toxic processes and assured the  House that  the necessary  steps  for  securing observance of  safety standards  would be taken early in the interest of  the workers and the general public. Pursuant to this assurance,  the  Delhi  Administration  constituted  an Expert Committee  consisting of  Shri Manmohan  Singh, Chief Manager, IPCL,  BARODA, as  Chairman and  3 other persons as Members to  go into  the existence  of safety  and pollution control measures  covering  all  aspects  such  as  storage, manufacture and  handling of  chlorine  in  Shriram  and  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 25  

suggest measures  necessary  for  strengthening  safety  and pollution control  arrangements with  a view  to eliminating community risk.  The Manmohan  Singh Committee  visited  the caustic chlorine  plant  and  inspected  various  operations including storage  tanks, cylinders and tonners and obtained detailed  information   from  the  management  and  after  a thorough and exhaustive inquiry, submitted its Report to the Government. This Report is a detailed Report 319 dealing exclusively  with the  caustic  chlorine  plant  and considerable reliance  must, therefore,  be placed  upon it. The Manmohan Singh Committee made various recommendations in this Report  in  regard  to  safety  and  pollution  control measures with a view to minimising hazard to the workmen and the public  and obviously  the caustic chlorine plant cannot be allowed  to be restarted unless these recommendations are strictly complied with by the management of Shriram.      Now, on 4th December, 1985 a major leakage of oleum gas took place from one of the units of Shriram and this leakage affected a large number of persons, both amongst the workmen and  the  public,  and,  according  to  the  petitioner,  an Advocate practising in the Tis Hazari Courts died on account of inhalation  of oleum  gas. This leakage resulted from the bursting of the tank containing oleum gas as a result of the collapse of  the structure  on which  it was  mounte and  it created a  scare amongst  the people  residing in that area. Hardly had  the people got out of the shock of this disaster when, within  two days,  another leakage, though this time a minor one,  took place  as a  result of  escape of oleum gas from the  joints of  a pipe.  The immediate  response of the Delhi Administration to these two leakages was the making of an Order dated 6th December 1985 by the District Magistrate, Delhi under  sub-s.(1) of  s.133 of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure, directing  and requiring  Shriram within two days from the date of issue of the order to cease carrying on the occupation of  manufacturing and  processing  hazardous  and lethal chemicals and gases including chlorine, oleum, super- chlorine, phosphate,  etc. at  their establishment  in Delhi and within  7 days  to remove  such chemicals and gases from the said  place and  not again  to keep or store them at the same place  or to  appear on 17th December 1985 in the court of the  District Magistrate,  Delhi to  show cause  why  the order should  not be  enforced. When  we took  up  the  writ petitions for  hearing on  7th December  1985, our attention was drawn  to this  order made  by the  District Magistrate, Delhi on  6th December  1985 and  on perusing  the order  we pointed out  the inadequacies  in it which had the effect of virtually defeating  the urgency  of the action to be taken. We had  earlier appointed  a team  of Experts  to visit  the caustic chlorine  plant of Shriram and to report whether the recommendations of  the Manmohan  Singh Committee  had  been carried out  by the  management and  this  team  of  Experts orally reported  to us  at the hearing on 7th December, 1985 that they 320 had been  able to  inspect the  plant for  only a  couple of hours and  that cursory  inspection showed  that many of the recommendations of  the Manmohan Singh Committee appeared to have been  complied with  and that  too two  one hundred  MT tanks for  storage of  chlorine which  constituted  a  major element of  hazard or  risk had  been  emptied.  Since  this inspection made by the team of Experts had necessarily to be very  hurried   and  superficial   on  account  of  want  of sufficient time,  we adjourned  the writ  petition  to  13th December, 1985 with a direction that the petitioner would be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 25  

entitled to  appoint his  own team  of experts  who would be allowed access to the caustic chlorine plant for the purpose of ascertaining  whether the  various recommendations of the Manmohan Singh  Committee had  been carried  out or  not and whether there  were  any  other  drawbacks  or  deficiencies likely to  endanger the  lives of workmen and the public. We also, with  a view  to expediting adjudication of claims for compensation on  behalf of the victims of oleum gas leakage, appointed the  Chief Metropolitan  Magistrate as the Officer before whom  claims for compensation may be filed by persons affected by  leakage of  oleum gas  in the course of the two incidents referred  to above and we fixed time of four weeks within which  such claim of compensation may be filed before the Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate,  Delhi. We may point out that subsequently  by an  Order dated  10.1.1986 we extended the time  for filing of compensation claims upto January 31, 1986. We  also by  our Orders  dated 16.1.1986 and 21.1.1986 gave a  further direction  that those  who file compensation claims  before  the  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Delhi should be got examined by a team of Medical Experts and this task was entrusted to the Secretary of the Delhi State Legal Aid and  Advice Board. This direction was given by us with a view to  ensuring that  contemporaneous medical  evidence of the injuries  suffered by  the claimants and of the cause of such injury should be available in support of the claims for compensation lodged by the victims of oleum gas leakage.      Pursuant to  the liberty  given by  us, the  petitioner appointed  an   Expert  Committee  consisting  of  Dr.  G.D. Agarwal, Professor T. Shivaji Rao and Shri Purkayastha. This Committee, which we shall hereafter refer to as the ’Agarwal Committee’, visited the caustic chlorine plant and submitted a Report  to this  Court in  which it  pointed  out  various inadequacies in  the plant and expressed the opinion that it was not possible 321 to eliminate  hazard to  the public  so long  as  the  plant remained at the present location.      Since  there  were  conflicting  opinions  put  forward before us  in regard  to the  question whether  the  caustic chlorine plant should be allowed to be restarted without any real hazard  or risk to the workmen and the public at large, we thought  it desirable  to appoint  an independent team of Experts to  assist us  in this  task. We  accordingly by  an Order dated  18th December,  1985 constituted a Committee of Experts consisting  of Dr.  Nilay Choudhary  as Chairman and Dr. Aghoramurty  and Mr. R.K. Garg as Members to inspect the caustic chlorine  plant and  submit a report to the Court on the following three points :           1. Whether  the plant can be allowed to recommence           the operations in its present state and condition?           2. If  not, what  are the  measures required to be           adopted  against  the  hazard  or  possibility  of           leaks, explosion, pollution of air and water etc.,           for this purpose?           3. How  many of  the safety  devices  against  the           above hazards  and possibility  exist in the plant           at present  and which  of them,  though necessary,           are not installed in the plant.      This Committee  of Experts to which we shall hereafter, for the  sake of  convenience, refer  to as ’Nilay Choudhary Committee’, visited  the caustic  chlorine plant on December 28, 1985 and after considering the Reports of Doctor Slater, Manmohan Singh  Committee and  Agarwal Committee and hearing the parties  made a  report to  the  Court  setting  out  14 recommendations which  in its  opinion were  required to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 25  

complied with  by the  management in  order to  minimise the hazards due  to  possible  chlorine  leak.  Nilay  Choudhary Committee pointed  out that  it was  in agreement  with  the recommendations made  in the  Report of  the Manmohan  Singh Committee which  were exhaustive in nature and obviously the recommendations made  by it in its Report were supplementary recommednations in  addition to  those contained in Manmohan Singh Committee’s Report.      We have thus two major Reports, one of Manmohan Singh 322 Committee  and  the  other  of  Nilay  Choudhary  Committee, setting out  the recommendations which must be complied with by the management of Shriram in order to minimise the hazard or risk  which the  caustic  chlorine  plant  poses  to  the workmen and  the  public.  The  question  is  whether  these recommendations have been complied with by the management of Shriram, for  it is  only if these recommendations have been carried out  that  we  can  possibly  consider  whether  the caustic chlorine plant should be allowed to be restarted.      There is  also one  other report to which we must refer in this connection and that is the Report made by the Expert Committee appointed  by the  Lt. Governor of Delhi following upon the  leakage of  oleum gas  on 4th December 1985. Since the leakage  of oleum gas caused serious public concern, the Lt.  Governor  of  Delhi  constituted  an  Expert  committee consisting of Shri N.K. Seturaman as Chairman and four other experts as  members to  go into  the causes  of spillage  of oleum and  its after-effects,  to examine  if inspection and safety procedures  prescribed under  the existing  laws  and rules were  followed by  Shriram, to  fix responsibility for the leakage  of oleum gas, to review the emergency plans and measures for  containment of risk in the event of occurrence of such  situations and  for  elmination  of  pollution,  to examine any  other aspects that may have a bearing on safety pollution control  and hazard to the public from the factory of Shriram,  to make specific recommendations with a view to achieving effective pollution control and safety measures in the factory  and to  advise whether  the factory  should  be shifted away  from its present location in densely populated area. This Committee to which we shall hereafter refer to as the "Seturaman  Committee" made an on the spot inspection of the site  of the  factory and  after obtaining  the required information about  the  plant  submitted  a  Report  on  3rd January 1986.  This  Report,  it  must  be  conceded,  deals primarily with  the safety  procedures in the sulphuric acid plant from  which there  was oleum  gas leakage  and is  not based  on  any  indepth  review  and  study  of  safety  and pollution control  measures in  the caustic  chlorine plant. But even  so it  does contain  some observations  which have relevance to the question whether the caustic chlorine plant poses any hazard to the community and what steps or measures are necessary to be taken to minimise the risk to the people living in the vicinity. 323      It is  necessary at this stage to point out that whilst these proceedings  were going  on before the Court, an order dated 7th  December 1985  was issued  by  the  Inspector  of Factories, Delhi  in exercise  of the  power conferred under Section 40  sub-section (2)  of the Factories Act, 1948. The order commenced with the following recital, viz.,           "Whereas  it  has  appeared  to  me  that  Caustic           chlorine  plant  and  sulphuric  acid  plants  are           running without  adequate  safety  measures  being           adopted by  your management,  thereby  endangering           the human  life and  safety of the workers and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 25  

         public at  large. Earlier  notices of  the  Labour           Department asking your management to ensure proper           safety measures  has not been complied with fully;           and           Whereas inspite  of your  management’s  assurances           vide letter  dated  14.10.1985,  on  4.12.85,  non           adoption of  the  adequate  safety  measures  have           resulted in  collapse of  the structure  on  which           oleum tank  was mounted  resulting in  the massive           leakage of  oleum causing fumes in the environment           affecting the  health and safety of a large number           of residents of the Union Territory of Delhi; and           Whereas the  factory is  not still having adequate           safety measures required for such plants." and prohibited  Shriram from  using the caustic chlorine and sulphuric acid  plants till  adequate  safety  measures  are adopted and  inminent danger  to human  life is  eliminated. Soon thereafter,  on December  13, 1985, a show-cause notice was issued  by the Assistant Commissioner (Factories) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi calling upon Shriram to show- cause as  to why action for revocation of its licence should not be  taken under Section 430 sub-section (3) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation  Act, 1957  for violation of the terms and conditions  of the  licence. Shriram by its letter dated 23rd December,  1985,  showed  cause  against  the  proposed cancellation of  its licence  but by  an  Order  dated  24th December  1985,   the  Assistant   Commissioner  (Factories) directed Shriram  to stop  industrial use of the premises at which the  chlorine caustic  plant is located. The result is that unless  these two  orders - one dated 7th December 1985 and the other 324 dated 24th December 1985 - are vacated or suspended, Shriram cannot be allowed to restart the caustic chlorine plant.      We may first consider what has been said by the various Expert Committees in regard to the relocation of the caustic Chlorine plant.  All the  Expert Committees are unanimous in their view  that by  adopting  proper  and  adequate  safety measures the  elements of risk to the workmen and the public can only  be minimised  but it cannot be totally eliminated. Dr. Slater  has in  the last  part of his Report pointed out that inspection  of the  caustic chlorine  plant revealed "a worrying state  of affairs"  and he  was of the opinion that the plant  was liable  to be  "classed  as  a  major  hazard facility  by   applying  most   of  the  currently  accepted definitions"  and   it  did   not   "measure   up   to   the responsibilities incumbent  upon operators of such plants to safeguard both  public and employees so far as is reasonably practicable." He  made various  recommendations which in his opinion were  required to be complied with by Shriram and he added that  if a  substantial improvement  in safety was not possible or  rapidly forthcoming  along the  lines of  these recommendations    "the    authorities    should    consider constraining  its  activities  to  protect  the  public  and employees". He  concluded by  observing that  "relocation is the only  practicable long term option which would guarantee the complete  removal of  the community  risk". The Manmohan Singh Committee  also observed towards the end of its Report that "total  elimination of risk to the comminity i.e. human population from  toxic plant  hazardous industry  located in close proximity  is improbable.  However, the probability of risk can  be immensely  reduced if  the plant  is  run  with adequate  precautions,"   and  proceeded   to  make  various recommendations for "strict and immediate compliance with an object to  minimise risk  to the  workers and the population

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 25  

around". Seturaman’s Committee also pointed out in paragraph 10.8.1. of  its Report  that Shriram factory "is certainly a perennial source  of hazard  to the community. These hazards cannot be  completely eliminated  but could  be minimised by strict compliance  of safety  regulations. Giving due weight to the  hazard aspects  as mentioned  above and  taking into account the  safety  of  the  community  as  a  whole,"  the Manmohan Singh  Committee observed  that functioning  of the SEFI in  the present  location is  not  desirable.  So  also Aggarwal Committee  opined that  "under  so  many  uncertain factors  a   chlorine  manufacturing  unit  cannot  be  even reasonably safe when located in proximity 325 to a  densely populated area. In the circumstances, the only practical solution  is to  relocate the  chlorine  plant  at least 10  k.ms.  away  from  the  urban  limits  of  densely populated areas  with  adequate  safety  measures."  Finally Nilay Choudhary  Committee also  stated that even if all the recommendations made  in its Report as also in the Report of Manmohan Singh  Committee were carried out, "the risk due to major release  of chlorine  could only  be reduced  but  not completely eliminated.  Complete elimination  of the risk to the population  at large obviously lies in relocation of the plant in  an area without human habitation." It will thus be seen that the general concensus of opinion of all the Expert Committees is  that relocation of the caustic chlorine plant is the only long term solution if hazard to the community is to be  completely eliminated.  We have  therefore decided to hear arguments  on the  question as  to whether  the caustic chlorine  plant   should  be  directed  to  be  shifted  and relocated at  a place  where there  will be no hazard to the community and  if so,  within what  time frame.  This  is  a question which  will require  serious  consideration  and  a National Policy  will have  to be  evolved by the Government for location of toxic or hazardous industries and a decision will have  to be  taken in  regard  to  relocation  of  such industries with  a view to eliminating risk to the community likely to  arise from  the operation of such industries. But the immediate  question which we have to consider is whether the caustic  chlorine plant  of Shriram should be allowed to be reopened  and if  so, subject to what conditions, keeping in  mind  constantly  that  the  operation  of  the  caustic chlorine plant  does involve  a certain  amount of hazard or risk to the community.      Now it  is an  admitted fact  that the caustic chlorine plant was  set up  by Shriram  more than  35 years  ago  and whatever might  have been the situation at the time when the plant was installed, it cannot be disputed that, at present, largely owing  to the  growth and  development of  the city, there is  sizable population  living in  the vicinity of the plant and there is therefore hazard or risk to large numbers of  people,   if,  on   account  of  any  accident,  whether occasioned by  negligence or  not, chlorine gas escapes. The various Expert  Committees appointed  by the  Government  as well as  by the  Court clearly  emphasise the  danger to the community living in the 326 vicinity of  the caustic chlorine plant if there is exposure to chlorine gas through an accidental release which may take place on  account of  negligence or other unforeseen events. Now it  is evident from the reports of the Expert Committees - and  on this  aspect of  the matter they are all unanimous that there  was considerable  negligence on  the part of the management of  Shriram in  the maintenance  and operation of the caustic  chlorine plant  and there were also defects and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 25  

drawbacks in  its structure  and design.  The report  of Dr. Slater which  is the  first report  in  the  series  clearly pointed  out   that  the   safety  policies,  practices  and awareness on  the  part  of  the  management  needed  to  be addressed  urgently   and  added   inter   alia   that   the effectiveness and  availability of  the design and emergency arrangements was,  to say the least, questionable and in the real emergency  involving a  major spill, the measures would probably prove  ineffective in limiting serious consequences inside and  outside  the  plant.  He  also  added  that  the standard of  housekeeping and training among the operational staff was  not good  and it  was symptomatic  of  inadequate awareness of  the importance of safety devices and the scale of potential  consequences following  "loss of containment". He also  reiterated that  the manner  in which  the  caustic chlorine plant  was being  maintained and  operated did  not "measure up  to the responsiblities incumbent upon operators of such  plants". So  also  the  report  of  Manmohan  Singh Committee pointed  out various drawbacks and deficiencies in the structure  and design  of the  caustic chlorine plant as also in  its maintenance  and  operation  and  made  various detailed  recommendations   which  in  the  opinion  of  the Manmohan  Singh   Committee  needed   to  be   strictly  and scrupulously carried out, if the risk to the workers and the population in  the vicinity  was to  be minimised. The Nilay Choudhary Committee  also made  several  recommendations  in order to  minimise the  hazard due  to a possible leakage of chlorine gas.  The management  of Shriram  claimed that  all these recommendations  made in the reports of Manmohan singh committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee had been carried out by Shriram  and the  possible hazard  to the workers and the community living  in the  vicinity was almost reduced to nil and that  Shriram should  therefore be allowed to reopen the caustic chlorine  plant. The  management of  Shriram made it clear that  they did  not intended  to  restart  immediately their plants  manufacturing Sulphuric  Acid, Oleum,  Chloro- sulphonic Acid,  Super Phosphate  and Granulated  Fertiliser Ferric Alum and Active Earth. Since these plants were 327 under detailed  engineering audit  and  that  out  of  these plants Double  Conversion Double  Absorption sulphuric  Acid plant and  Ferric Alum  and Active  Earth  plants  would  be started in  the second  phase "after  attending to immediate maintenance needs"  and that so far as the other plants were concerned, the  schedule restarting  would  be  communicated later. The  only plants  in respect  of which Shriram sought the permission  of the Court to restart were the power plant and the  plants  manufacturing  vanaspati  and  refined  oil including its  by-products and  recovery plants  like  soap, glycerine and  technical hard  oil and  the caustic chlorine plant including  plants manufacturing  by-products  such  as sodium sulphate, hydrochloric acid, stable bleaching powder, superchlor, sodium  hypochlorite and  container  works.  Our directions  in   the   present   judgment   must   therefore necessarily be  confined only  to these plants which Shriram wants to  restart immediately  and we may make it clear that so far  as other  plants which  Shriram does  not propose to restart  immediately   are  concerned,  they  shall  not  be restarted by  Shriram without  obtaining further  directions from  the   Court,  particularly  since  the  machinery  and equipment in  some of  these plants is as pointed out in the report of  Seturaman Committee  old and  worn  out  and  the safety instrumentation  is not  adequate and the Court would therefore have  to  be  satisfied  that  the  machinery  and equipment is properly renovated and its design and structure

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 25  

modernised with a view to ensuring maximum safety before the Court can  permit these plants to be recommissioned. Now, of course, there could be no objection to the restarting to the vanaspati and  refined oil  plant and  other recovery plants like soap,  glycerine and  technical hard  oil, because they admittedly  do  not  involve  any  risk  or  hazard  to  the community but  these plants obviously cannot be restarted by the management  of Shriram  unless  and  until  the  caustic chlorine plant  is also  allowed  to  be  reopened,  because hydrogen is  needed for  the vanaspati and refined oil plant and hydrogen  would not  be  available  unless  the  caustic chlorine plant  is put  into operation.  The question  which therefore requires  to be  considered  is  whether  all  the recommendations  made  in  the  reports  of  Manmohan  Singh Committee and  Nilay Choudhary  Committee in  regard to  the caustic  chlorine   plant  have  been  carried  out  by  the management of  Shriram and  if so, whether Shriram should be allowed to restart the caustic chlorine plant. 328      Since there  was considerable  controversy between  the parties as to whether the recommendations made in the report of Manmohan  Singh Committee  and Nilay  Choudhary Committee had been  carried out  by the  management of  Shriram and  a notice dated  28th January,  1986 issued by the Inspector of Factories (Delhi) to the management of Shriram set out seven of these  recommendations in  respect of which the Inspector of Factories  did not  appear to  be satisfied as to whether they had  been complied  with or  not and a dispute was also specifically raised  in the affidavit of Mrs. M.Bassi, Joint Labour  Commissioner,   Delhi  Administration,   dated  31st January,   1986   in   regard   to   compliacne   with   the recommendations of  Manmohan  Singh  Committee  set  out  in paragraph 3  and  the  recommendations  of  Nilay  Choudhary Committee set out in paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the Court decided to  appoint another Expert Committee for the purpose of ascertaining  whether the various recommendations made in the reports  of Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee had  been complied  with by  the  management.  The Court accordingly  made  an  order  on  31st  January,  1986 appointing a  Committee consisting  of Shri  Manmohan Singh, Professor P.  Khanna, Dr. Sharma and Shri Gharekhan to visit the site of the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram and report to the  Court whether  the recommendations  contained in the reports of  Manmohan Singh  Committee  and  Nilay  Choudhary Committee had  been  complied  with  by  the  management  of Shriram and  even if there was no strict compliance with any of these  recommendations, whether  the measures  adopted by the management  of  Shriram  were  sufficient  to  meet  the requirements set  out  in  the  reports  of  Manmohan  Singh Committee and  Nilay  Choudhary  Committee.  It  seems  that Professor P.  Khanna could  not make  his services available with the  result that  the assignment entrusted by us by our order dated  31st January,  1986 had  to be carried out by a Committee consisting  of only  three persons,  namely,  Shri Manmohan Singh, Dr. Sharma and Shri Gharekhan. The Committee inspected  the   caustic  chlorine   plant  of  Shriram  and submitted its  report dt.  3rd February,  1986  showing  the status of  compliance of  the recommendations  made  by  the Manmohan Singh  Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee. The report showed that barring the construction of a shed on the space  where   filled  cylinders   are  to  be  kept,  which construction is expected to be complete by 15th March, 1986, all the  recommendations made  in the  reports  of  Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee have been 329

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 25  

complied with  by the  management of  Shriram. The hydraulic test carried  out by Messrs. Nike Associates, Bombay, a firm recognised by  the Chief  Inspector of  Factories, Bombay as ’competent  person’  to  take  up  the  responsibilities  of testing, examining  and issuing  certificate in  respect  of pressure vessels  also established  that all  the five tanks had an  adequate capacity  of withstanding  pressure.  Since however the  authorities  wanted  a  hydraulic  test  to  be carried out  once again  by  the  Regional  Testing  Centre, Okhla, the  management of  Shriram got  a fresh test carried out by  the Regional  Testing  Centre  and  the  certificate issued by  the Regional  Testing Centre  dated 4th February, 1986 showed  that all the five tanks were found to be strong enough  to  withstand  pressure  of  375  dsig.  for  thirty minutes’ duration. The Committee also insisted that not more than 140  filled chlorine cylinders should be stored and the report shows  that this  limitation has been accepted by the management  of  Shriram.  The  Committee  also  witnessed  a mockdrill with  a view  to  ensuring  whether  there  was  a specially trained  group  to  handle  any  chlorine  leakage emergency and  the Committee  stated in  the report that the mock-drill was found to be satisfactory. There were also one or  two  other  recommendations  in  respect  of  which  the Committee observed that compliance with them could be tested only during the operation of the plant.      The question  is whether  in view  of the fact that all the recommendations  made in  the Reports  of Manmohan Singh Committee  and  Nilay  Choudhary  Committee  have  now  been complied with  by the  management of  Shriram,  the  caustic chlorine plant of Shriram should be allowed to be restarted. The petitioner  who appeared  in person submitted vehemently and passionately  that  the  court  should  not  permit  the caustic chlorine  plant to  be restarted  because there  was always an  element of hazard or risk to the community in its operation. He  urged that  chlorine is  a dangerous  gas and even if  the utmost  care is  taken the  possibility of  its accidental  leakage   cannot  be  ruled  out  and  it  would therefore be  imprudent to  rul the  risk  of  allowing  the caustic chlorine plant to be restarted. Mrs. Kumar-mangalam, learned counsel  appearing on  behalf  of  lokahit  Congress Union as  also the  learned counsel  appearing on  behalf of Karamchari  Ekta   Union,  however,   expressed   themselves emphatically against  the permanent  closure of  the caustic chlorine plant  and submitted  that if  the caustic chlorine plant was not allowed to be restarted, it would not be 330 possible to operate the plants manufacturing the down stream products and  the result  would be  that about 4,000 workmen would be  thrown out of employment. Both the learned counsel submitted that  since all  the recommendations  made in  the reports of  Manmohan Singh  Committee  and  Nilay  Choudhary Committee had  been  complied  with  by  the  management  of shriram and  the  possibility  of  risk  or  hazard  to  the community had  been  considerably  minimised  and  in  their opinion reduced  to almost  nil, the  caustic chlorine plant should  be   allowed  to  be  reopened.  The  learned  Addl. Sclicitor General  appearing on behalf of the Union of India and the  Delhi Administration  stated  before  us  that  his clients  were   not  withdrawing   their  objection  to  the reopening of the caustic chlorine plant but if the court was satisfied that  there was  no real  risk or  hazard  to  the community by  reason of  various recommendations of Manmohan Singh Committee  and Nilay  Choudhary Committee  having been carried out  by the  management of  Shriram, the Court might make such  order as  it thinks fit, but in any event, strict

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 25  

conditions should  be imposed  with a  view to  ensuring the safety of  the workmen  and the  people in the vicinity. The learned counsel  for Shriram  strongly pleaded that now that all the  recommendations made  in the  reports  of  Manmohan Singh Committee  and  Nilay  Choudhary  Committee  had  been complied with  by the management and every possible step had been taken  and measure  adopted for the purpose of ensuring complete safety  in the  operation of  the caustic  chlorine plant, there  was no  real danger  of escape of chlorine gas and even  if there  was some  leakage it  could be only of a small quantity  and such  leakage could  easily be contained and there  was therefore  no reason  for permanently closing down the  caustic chlorine plant as it would result not only in less  to the  company but  also in  unemployment of about 4,000 workmen  and non-availability  of  chlorine  to  Delhi Water Supply  Undertaking and  short supply  of down  stream products. These rival contentions raise a very difficult and delicate question  before the  court as  to what  course  of action to adopt.      It is  undoubtedly true  that chlorine gas is dangerous to the  life and  health of  the community and if it escapes either from  the storage  tanks or from the filled cylinders or from  any other  point in the course of production, it is likely to  affect the  health and  well-being of the workmen and the  people living  in  the  vicinity.  There  was  some controversy before us 331 as to what is the concentration of chlorine in the air which is dangerous  to life  and health. Aggarwal Committee in its report stated  that concentration  of chlorine  in  the  air above  25   parts  per   million  (PPM)   is  recognised  by Occupational Safety  and Health  Act  (USA)  as  immediately dangerous to  life and  health, but  this  was  disputed  on behalf of the management of Shriram relying on the report of Manmohan Singh  Committee which opined that it is only where concentration of  chlorine in  the air  is between  40 to 60 parts per  million (PPM)  that exposure for 30 minutes would be dangerous  to life. It is not necessary for us to go into this controversy  and decide  as to  which view  is correct, whether the  one expressed  by Aggarwal Committee or the one expressed by  Manmohan Singh  Committee.  Fortunately,  both Committees are  agreed that  chlorine is a hazardous gas and though smaller  concentrations of  chlorine in  the air  may cause only  irritation and  coughing, larger concentrations, whether above  25 parts  per million (PPM) or above 40 parts per million  (PPM) are  likely to  cause serious  danger  to life. There  can therefore  be no  doubt that there would be hazard to  the life and health of the community, if there is escape of  chlorine gas  from the  caustic  chlorine  plant, whether by  reason of negligence of the management or due to accidental  release.  In  fact  the  Issue  of  the  Journal "Scavenger"  for   January,  1985   enumerates  some   major accidents which  have occurred  in different  parts  of  the world in  the process  industries and this enumeration shows that not  less than  25 accidents have been caused by escape of chlorine gas in the last about 70 years and many of these accidents have  resulted in death of quite a few persons. To take only  a few  examples,  the  escape  of  chlorine  from storage tank  in Wilsum Germany in 1952 resulted in death of seven persons  and similarly  release  of  chlorine  gas  in Bankstown, Australia  in 1967  resulted in  gassing of  five persons and  on account  of escape  of chlorine gas in Baton Rouge in  1976, about 10,000 persons had to be evacuated. It is true that quite a few of these accidents arose on account of escape  of chlorine  gas in  course of  transport by rail

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 25  

tank cars  but some accidents did occur on account of escape of chlorine  gas from  storage tanks.  We  cannot  therefore ignore the  possible hazard  to the health and well-being of the workmen and the people living in the vicinity on account of escape  of chlorine  gas. We also cannot overlook the old and  worn   out  state   of  machinery  and  equipment,  the negligence of the management in the maintenance 332 and  operation   of  the  caustic  chlorine  plant  and  the indifference shown  by the  management in  installing proper safety devices  and safety instruments and taking proper and adequate measures for ensuring safety of the workmen and the people living  in the  vicinity.  These  are  considerations which are  very relevant  in deciding  whether  the  caustic chlorine plant  should be  allowed to  be restarted.  But as against these considerations, we must also take into account the proven  fact that  all the  recommendations made  in the Reports of  Manmohan Singh  Committee  and  Nilay  Choudhary Committee have been carried out by the management of Shriram and it  is the  opinion of not only Manmohan singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee but also of the last Committee appointed by  us on  31st January, 1986 that since all these recommendations have been complied with by the management in satisfactory manner,  Shriram may  be allowed to restart the caustic chlorine  plant. There can be no doubt, particularly having regard  to the  opinion of  Manmohan Singh Committee, Nilay Choudhary  Committee and  the last Committee appointed by us,  that the  possibility  of  hazard  or  risk  to  the community is  considerably minimised  and there  is  now  no appreciable risk  of danger  to the community if the caustic chlorine plant  is allowed  to be  restarted. We cannot also ignore the  interests of  the workmen  while  deciding  this delicate and  complex question.  It could  not  be  disputed either  by   the  Government   of  India  or  by  the  Delhi Administration or  even by the petitioner that the effect of permanently closing down the caustic chlorine plant would be to throw about 4,000 workmen out of employment and that such closure would  lead to their utter impoverishment. The Delhi Water Supply  Undertaking which  gets its supply of chlorine from Shriram  would also have to find alternative sources of supply and  it was  common ground  between the  parties that such sources may be quite distant from Delhi. The production of down  stream products  would also  be seriously  affected resulting to  some extent in short supply of these products. These various  considerations  on  both  sides  have  to  be weighed and  balanced and a decision has to be made at to on which side  the considerations  preponderate  and  till  the balance. It  is none  too easy task, for the decision either way may  entail  serious  consequences.  We  have  therefore reflected over  the various aspects of this rather difficult and complex  question with great anxiety and care and taking an overall  view of the diverse considerations we have, with considerable hesitation,  bordering  almost  on  trepidation reached the conclusion that, pending consideration of the 333 issue whether  the caustic chlorine plant should be directed to be shifted and relocated at some other place, the caustic chlorine plant  should be  allowed to  be restarted  by  the management  of   Shriram,  subject   to  certain   stringent conditions which we propose to specify.      But before  we proceed  to set out the conditions which must strictly be observed by the management of Shriram while operating the  caustic chlorine plant, we must deal with one other question  which was  raised before us on behalf of the Central Board  of Prevention  and Control of Water Pollution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 25  

(hereinafter referred  to as the Central Board). The Central Board is constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)  Act, 1974  (hereinafter referred  to  as  the Water Act)  and it is also required to perform the functions assigned under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981  (hereinafter referred  to as  the Air Act). Since some of  the plants  of Shriram  situate within  the complex including the  vanaspati plant  were  discharging  effluent, Shriram was  required  to  obtain  consent  for  discharging effluent from  the Central  Board under  Section 25  of  the Water Act  and Shriram  accordingly made  an application for this purpose  in the  prescribed  form.  The  Central  Board passed an  Order on  19th April,  1979 granting  consent  to Shriram to  discharge effluent  from their  factory  in  the sewer, subject  to the  terms and  conditions set out in the consent order.  The consent  granted to  Shriram was renewed from time  to time  and the  last renewed  Consent Order was dated 22nd  July, 1985  and it was valid upto 31st December, 1985.  Pursuant  to  the  Consent  Order  Shriram  installed effluent treatment plants in the vanaspati, stable bleaching powder, super  phosphate and  active earth units with a view to complying  with the  limiting standards stipulated by the Central Board in the consent Order. The waste water in other units was  either solar  dried in lagoons or recycled in the different process houses and the major units emanating waste water were  thus vanaspati, active earth, superphosphate and stable bleaching  powder plants.  The waste  water  effluent from these  four plants  used to  be drained out through one common terminal  outlet and  the complaint  of  the  Central Board was that this combined effluent at the terminal outlet never complied with the limiting standards prescribed by the Central Board.  The  results  of  analysis  of  the  samples collected by  the officers  of  the  Central  Board  at  the terminal  outlet   were  annexed   as  Annexure   I  to  the supplementary affidavit dated 334 19th December,  1985 filed  by Shri P.R. Gharekhan on behalf of the  Central Board.  The Central  Board  also  repeatedly complained that  the effluent  discharged from the vanaspati plant was  not in  accordance with  the  limiting  standards prescribed in  the Consent  Order. Now,  as pointed  out  by Surendra Kumar,  Senior Environmental Engineer in the employ of Shriram, there are broadly two technologies available for effluent  treatment   in  vanaspati  industry.  One  is  the technology of removing suspended solids by settling with the help of clariflocculation and the other is the technology of removing suspended solids, oils and grease and greasy solids by flotation  and skimming.  The affidavit of Surendra Kumar stated that  the technology  based on settling with the help of clariflocculation  was recommended  by the  Central Board and  Messrs   Dorr  Oliver   were  selected  by  Shriram  in consultation  with  the  Central  Board  for  supply  of  an effluent treatment  plant employing  this  technology.  But, unfortunately, the  plant of  Messrs Dorr  Oliver failed  to give  the   guaranteed  results   presumably  because   this technology was  not satisfactory.  The Central Board in fact carried out  a  performance  evaluation  of  this  plant  in December, 1983  and they  came to  the conclusion  that this plant would  require  substantial  changes  to  make  it  to achieve stipulated  effluent standards. It was then realised that the  technology of  removal of  impurities by flotation method is  more appropriate for vanaspati plant effluent and Shriram accordingly  once  again,  as  pointed  out  in  the affidavit of Surendra Kumar, made a reference to the Central Board. On 17th January, 1985 the Central Board directed that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 25  

Messrs Kroft Engineering Company should be asked to set up a pilot plant  based on  dissolved air flotation technology in the vanaspati  plant for treatability study of the effluent. But despite the follow-up action taken by Shriram, the pilot plant was  not set  up by  Messrs Kroft Engineering Company. Shriram thereupon in its anxiety to comply with the limiting standards set  by the  Central Board  in the  Consent Order, placed an order with another reputed supplier namely, Messrs Patel Brothers of Bombay in June, 1985 for supply of a plant based  on   flotation  technology.   Messrs  Patel  Brothers guaranteed to  instal  and  commission  the  plant  by  31st December, 1985  but the  affidavits show that there has been some delay  in  the  installation  of  this  plant  and  its installation is  now going to be completed by 28th February, 1986. Meanwhile, however, Shriram installed 335 at the  terminal outlet  a  plant  based  on  dissolved  air flotation technology  of Messrs  Krofta Engineering  Company and the  counter-affidavit of Shri P.R. Gharekhan dated 13th January, 1986  shows that the representatives of the Central Board have  verified that  this terminal treatment plant has been installed.  However, the  performance of  this terminal treatment plant  is yet to be evaluated by the Central Board in order  to assess  compliance with  the limiting standards stipulated in  the Consent  Order. The  Central  Board  will therefore have  to evaluate the performance of this terminal treatment plant  after the caustic chlorine and other plants of Shriram  commence production.  So  far  as  the  effluent discharged by  the active  earth plant  and stable bleaching plant is  concerned, it complies with the limiting standards prescribed for  it in  the Consent  Order but  the  effluent discharged by  the vanaspati  plant does not comply with the relevant limiting  standards. Shriram  has, however,  stated that once  the plant  ordered from  Messrs  Patel  Brothers, Bombay  is   installed,  it   will  be  possible  to  secure compliance with  the requirement  of the limiting standards. This of  course will  have to  be assessed  on the  basis of performance evaluation of the plant of Messrs Patel Brothers when installed.      But there  is one  difficulty in  the  way  of  Shriram restarting its  vanaspati plant.  The last  renewed  Consent Order dated  2nd July,  1985 expired  on 31st December, 1985 and obviously therefore Shriram cannot operate the vanaspati plant and  discharge effluent  unless and  until the Consent Order is  renewed, for  the discharge  of  effluent  without Consent Order  would be  contrary to  the provisions  of the Water Act.  We, however,  find that  the Central  Board  has stated in  the affidavit  filed in  this behalf by Shri D.C. Sharma, Assistant  Environmental Engineer,  that the Central Board has  no objection  to grant temporary consent pursuant to the provisions of the Water Act on condition that Shriram would  comply   with  all  the  recommendations  of  various Committees appointed  by this  Court or  otherwise and  that such consent  would be  valid only for a period of one month from the  date of  issue of  the Consent Order. Since we are permitting Shriram  to reopen its caustic chlorine vanaspati and other plants above referred to, we would ask the Central Board to  grant a  temporary Consent  Order to Shriram valid for a period of one month from the date of its issue and the Central Board will take samples 336 from the  effluent discharged  from the  vanaspati plant  as also at  the  terminal  outlet  and  ascertain  whether  the samples comply  with the  limiting standards  set out in the Consent Order.  If  the  samples  do  not  comply  with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 25  

relevant standards, the Central Board will immediately bring such fact to the notice of this Court and it will be open to the Central  Board to  take such  action as  it  thinks  fit including nonrenewal of the Consent Order.      So far as compliance with the provisions of the Air Act is concerned,  the Central  Government in  consultation with the Central  Board issued a notification under Section 19(1) of  the  Air  Act  notifying  certain  areas  in  the  Union Territory of Delhi as air pollution control area. The plants of Shriram  are admittedly  situated in  the  air  pollution control area  and the  industries carried on by Shriram also fall within  the schedule of industries specified in the Air Act. Shriram  was therefore  required to apply for a Consent Order from the Central Board under Section 21 of the Air Act and an  application was  accordingly made  by Shriram on the basis of  which a  Consent Order  was issued  by the Central Board on  13th June,  1985 authorising  Shriram  to  operate their plants  in the  air pollution control area, subject to the conditions  set out  in the  Consent Order.  The Consent Order relates  to three plants of Shriram, namely, sulphuric acid plant,  super phosphate  plant and  power plant. We are not concerned  at the  present stage with the sulphuric acid and super  phosphate plants since permission to restart them is not presently sought by Shriram and we need not therefore pause to  consider whether  the conditions  laid down in the consent Order  in respect  of these  two  plants  have  been complied with  or not.  So far as the power plant of Shriram is concerned,  it is  not the case of the Central Board that the conditions  in  the  Consent  Order  in  regard  to  the operation of  the power plant are not being complied with by the management,  though there  is specific complaint made in the affidavit  filed on behalf of the Central Board that the conditions in  the Consent  Order relating to sulphuric acid and super  phosphate plants  are not  being observed. We may however point  out that  if the  Central Board  finds at any time that  the conditions  in the  Consent Order relating to the  power  plant  are  not  being  complied  with  and  the particulate matter  emitted by  the stacks of the boilers is more than  150 mg/Nm3,  it will be open to the Central Board to take whatever action is appropriate under the law. 337      Before we  part  with  this  topic  of  water  and  air pollution by  the plants  operated by  Shriram, we may point out a  most unsatisfactory  state of  affairs which seems to prevail in  the Delhi  Municipal Corporation.  The Municipal Corporation sewer  in the Nazafgarh area has admittedly been lying chocked  since 1980  with the  result that Shriram has since then  not been able to discharge its domestic effluent in the  municipal sewer  and the domestic effluent has to be discharged  in   the  Nazafgarh   drain  thereby   adversely affecting the  standards prescribed by the Central Board. It is difficult  to understand  as to  why the  Delhi Municipal Corporation has  not taken any steps for the last five years to clean  up the  sewer so  that it can be used for carrying domestic effluent  discharged by  the  people.  We  are  not issuing any  direction in  this behalf  but we are certainly constrained to express our deep sense of regret at the total indifference  of   the  Delhi   Municipal   Corporation   in discharging its obligations under the law.      We have  therefore decided to permit Shriram to restart its power  plant as  also plants  for manufacture of caustic chlorine inculding  its by-products  like  sodium  sulphate, hydrochloric acid,  stable bleaching powder, superchlor, and sodium hypochlorite, vanaspati refined oil including its by- products  and  recovery  plants  like  soap,  glycerine  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 25  

technical hard  oil and  container works.  But there are two orders which  prohibit Shriram  from operating these plants. One is  the order  dated 7th  December, 1985  issued by  the Inspector of  Factories,  Delhi,  prohibiting  Shriram  from using the  caustic chlorine  and other  plants till adequate safety measures  are adopted  and imminent  danger to  human life is  eliminated and  the other  is the  order dated 24th December,  1985   issued  by   the  Assistant   Commissioner (Factories) directing  Shriram to stop industrial use of the premises on which the caustic chlorine plant is located. The validity of these two orders has been assailed by Shriram in Writ Petition  No. 26  of 1986.  We are  not inclined at the present moment  to  vacate  these  two  orders  because  the permission which we are granting by this judgment to Shriram to reopen  these plants  is as  a temporary  measure  to  be reviewed at  some point  of time  in the future and we would therefore merely  suspend the  operation of these two orders until further  directions with a view to enabling Shriram to restart  these  plants.  But  we  are  laying  down  certain conditions which shall be strictly and 338 scrupulously followed  by Shriram  and if  at any time it is found that any one or more of these conditions are violated, the permission granted by us will be liable to be withdrawn. We formulate these conditions as follows:-           (1)Since it  is clear  from the affidavits and the           reports of  the various Expert Committees that the           management  of   Shriram  was   negligent  in  the           operation and  maintenance of the caustic chlorine           plant and  did not take the necessary measures for           improving the  design and quality of the plant and           equipment and  installing adequate  safety devices           and  instruments  with  a  view  to  ensuring  the           maximum safety  of the  workers and  the community           living in  the vicinity  and it is only after W.P.           No. 12739  of 1985  was filed  and all the glaring           deviciencies were  pointed out that the management           carried  out   various  alterations   and  adopted           various   measures    in   accordance   with   the           recommendations made  by Manmohan  Singh Committee           and Nilay  Choudhary Committee,  it  is  necessary           that an expert Committee should be appointed by us           which will  monitor the  operation and maintenance           of  the   plant  and   equipment  and  ensure  the           continued implementation of the recommendations of           these two  committees. We  accordingly constituted           an Expert  Committee consisting  of Shri  Manmohan           Singh, Shri P.R. Gharekhan and Professor P. Khanna           of the  Indian Institute  of Technology,  Bombay -           and if  Professor P.  Khanna is  not available for           any  reason,   Dr.  Sharma   of   the   University           Department of  Chemical  Technology,  Bombay  will           take his place as a member of the Expert Committee           and this Expert Committee will inspect the caustic           chlorine plant  of Shriram  at  least  once  in  a           fortnight and  examine whether the recommendations           made  by   Manmohan  Singh   Committee  and  Nilay           Choudhary   Committee   are   being   scrupulously           implemented  by   the   management.   The   Expert           Committee will  also examine  the adequacy  of the           design,  materials,   fabrication  etc.   of   the           devices, instruments and other hardware calculated           to monitor,  warn, avoid,  control and  handle all           situations  arising   on   account   of   possible           accidental release  of chlorine  gas,  keeping  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 25  

         mind 339           matereological factors,  location of the plant and           the largeness  of the population exposed to hazard           or risk.  This examination  may involve a thorough           check and  experimentation at  site with a view to           determining how for the safety measures adopted by           the  management   are  adequate  to  deal  with  a           possible  situation.  The  Expert  Committee  will           submit a  report of  its examination to this Court           immediately after  completion of  the  examination           with copies  to the  petitioner and  Shriram.  The           first such examination shall be made by the Expert           Committee within one week of the restarting of the           caustic chlorine plant and it shall be followed by           a second examination within a further period of 15           days. If as a result of either such examination it           is found  that there is default on the part of the           management in  continuous compliance  with any  of           the  recommendations   made  by   Manmohan   Singh           Committee and  Nilay Choudhary  Committee  or  the           safety devices  or instruments are not adequate or           are  not   in  operation   or  are   not  properly           functioning, the  petitioner will be at liberty to           immediately bring  such default  to the  notice of           this Court  so that  in that event, the permission           granted to  the management  to restart the caustic           chlorine  plant  may  be  revoked.  Shriram  will,           within  3  days  from  today,  deposit  a  sum  of           Rs.30,000 in  this Court  to meet  the travelling,           boarding and  lodging expenses  of the  members of           the Expert Committee.           (2)  One   operator  should   be   designated   as           personally responsible  for each  safety device or           measures and  the head  of  the  caustic  chlorine           division should  be made  individually responsible           for the  efficient operation of such safety device           or measure.  If at  any time during examination by           the  Expert   Committee  or   inspection  by   the           Inspectorate it is found that any safety device or           measure  is   inoperative  or   is  not   properly           functioning, the  head  of  the  caustic  chlorine           plant as  well as  the operator  incharge of  such           safety device  or measure shall be held personally           responsible. Their duty shall be not merely 340           to report  non-functioning or  mal-functioning  of           any  safety   device  or  measure  to  the  higher           authority but  to see  that the  operation of  the           entire plant  is immediately shut-down, the safety           device is  urgently replenished and the plant does           not restart  functioning until  such replenishment           is completed.           (3) The Chief Inspector of Factories or any Senior           Inspector duly nominated by him, who has necessary           expertise in  inspection  of  chemical  factories,           will inspect  the caustic  chlorine plant at least           once in a week by paying surprise visit wihout any           previous  intimation   and  examine   whether  the           recommendations of  Manmohan Singh  Committee  and           Nilay Choudhary  Committee are being complied with           by the  management and  whether the safety devices           or instruments  installed by  the  management  are           operative and  are properly functioning or whether           there are  any  defects  or  deficiancies  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 25  

         operation and  maintenance of the caustic chlorine           plant and  in the  safety devices  or  instruments           installedin the  plant.  The  Chief  Inspector  of           Factories or  the senior  Inspector  nominated  by           him,  who   carries  out  such  inspection,  shall           immediately report to this Court and to the Labour           Commissioner any default, deficiency or remissness           on the part of the management which may be noticed           by him  in the  course of  such inspection  and on           such report  being made,  it will  be open  to the           Labour Commissioner  and the  Chief  Inspector  of           Factories to take such action as they think fit.           (4) The  Central Board  will also  depute a senior           Inspector to  visit the caustic chlorine plant and           the Vanaspati Plant atleast once in a week without           any  prior  notice  to  the  management,  for  the           purpose  of   ascertaining  whether  the  effluent           discharged from the Vanaspati Plant as also at the           terminal  out-let   complies  with   the  limiting           standards laid  down in  the Consent  Order issued           under the  Water Act  and the  particulate  matter           emitted by  the stacks of the boilers in the power           plant complies 341           with the  standards laid down in the Consent Order           issued under  the Air  Act and  if  there  is  any           default in  complying with  the relevant standards           in either  case, such  default shall be brought to           the notice  of this  Court and  the Central  Board           will be  entitled to  take such action as it think           fit, including  revocation of the relevant Consent           Order.           (5)  The management  of  Shriram  will  obtain  an           undertaking  from   the  Chairman   and   Managing           Director of  the Delhi  Cloth Mills  Ltd. which is           the owner  of the various units of Shriram as also           from the  officer or  officers who  are in  actual           management of  the caustic  chlorine plant that in           case there is any escape of chlorine gas resulting           in death or injury to the workmen or to the people           living in  the vicinity,  they will  be personally           responsible for  payment of  compensation for such           death or  injury and  such  undertaking  shall  be           filed in Court within 1 week from today.           (6)  There  shall   be  a   Committee   of   three           representatives  of  Lokahit  Congress  Union  and           three representatives  of Karamchari Ekta Union to           look after  th safety  arrangements in the caustic           chlorine plant.  The function  of  this  Committee           will be  to ensure  that all  safety measures  are           strictly observed  and there is no non-functioning           or  malfunctioning   of  the  safety  devices  and           instrument and  for this  purpose,  they  will  be           entitled to visit any section or department of the           plant during  any shift  and ask  for any relevant           information from  the management.  If there is any           default or  negligence in  the observance  of  the           safety measures  and the maintenance and operation           of  the  safety  devices  and  instruements,  this           Committee will  be entitled  to bring such default           or negligence  to the notice of the management and           if the  management does not heed to the same, this           Committee will  be entitled  to draw the attention           of the  Labour Commissioner  to  such  default  or           negligence. The  members of this Committee will be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 25  

         given proper  and adequate  training in  regard to           the functioning of the caustic 342           chlorine plant  and the  operation of  the  safety           devices and  instruments and  this  will  be  done           within a period of 2 weeks after the nomination of           three  representatives   on   the   Committee   is           communicated by  each of  the two  unions  to  the           management.           (7)  There shall  be placed  in each department or           section of  the caustic  chlorine plant as also at           the gate  of the  premises  a  detailed  chart  in           English and  Hindi stating the effects of chlorine           gas on  human body  and informing  the workmen and           the people  as to  what immediate treatment should           be taken  in case  they are affected by leakage of           chlorine gas.           (8)  Every worker  in the  caustic chlorine  plant           should  be  properly  trained  and  instructed  in           regard to  the functioning  of the  specific plant           and equipment in which he is working and he should           also  be   educated  and   informed  as   to  what           precautions should be taken and in case of leakage           of chlorine  gas, what  steps should  be taken  to           control  and   contain  such   leakage.  The  most           effective  way   of  giving   such  training   and           instruction   would    be   through   audio-visual           programmes  to   be  specially   prepared  by  the           management.  Even   after  proper   training   and           instruction is given it is likely that the workers           engaged in  the plant  may, on account of lapse of           time, forget the sequences of steps to be taken to           monitor,  warn,  avoid,  control  and  handle  any           chlorine leakage  emergency and  refresher courses           should therefore  be conducted  atleast once  in 6           weeks with mock trials.           (9)  Loud speakers  shall be  installed all around           the factory premises for giving timely warning and           adequate instructions  to the  people residing  in           the vicinity in case of leakage of chlorine gas.           (10) The   management    shall   maintain   proper           vigilance with  a view  to ensuring  that  workers           working in the caustic chlorine plant wear helmets           gas masks or safety belts as the case may be while           working in 343           the hazardous departments or sections of the plant           and regular  medical check-up of the workers shall           be got  carried out  by the management in order to           ensure that the workers are in good health.           (11) The management  of Shriram  will  deposit  in           this Court  a sum  of Rs. 20 lacs as and by way of           security for  payment of  compensation claims made           by or  on behalf  of the  victims of olium gas, if           and to  the  extent  to  which  such  compensation           claims are  held to  be well  founded. This amount           deposited by  the management  of Shriram  will  be           invested by  the Registrar  of this Court in fixed           deposit with  a Nationalised Bank so that it earns           interests and  it will abide further directions of           this Court.  The management  of Shriram  will also           furnish a  bank guarantee  to the  satisfaction of           the Registrar  of this  Court for  a sum  of Rs.15           lacs which bank guarantee shall be encashed by the           Registrar, wholly or in part, in case there is any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 25  

         escape of  chlorine gas  within a  period of three           years from  today resulting  in death or injury to           any workman  or to any person or persons living in           the vicinity.The amount of the bank guarantee when           encashed shall  be utilised  in or towards payment           of compensation  to the  victims of  chlorine gas,           the quantum  of compensation being determinable by           the  District  Judge  Delhi  on  applications  for           compensation being  made to  him by the victims of           chlorine gas.  The amount  of Rs.20  lacs shall be           deposited and  the bank  guarantee for  Rs.15 lacs           shall be furnished within a period of 2 weeks from           today and  on failure of the management of Shriram           to do  so,  the  permission  granted  by  us  this           Judgment to restart the caustic chlorine plant and           other plants shall stand withdrawn.      We have  formulated these  conditions with  a  view  to ensuring continuous  compliance with  the recommendations of Manmohan Singh  Committee and  Nilay Choudhary Committee and strict observance  of safety  standards and  procedures,  so that the  possibility of  hazard or  risk to the workmen and the community  is almost  reduced to  nil. We  would like to point out 344 that the  caustic chlorine  plant of Shriram is not the only plant which  is carrying  on a hazardous industry. There are many other  plants in  Delhi which  are employing  hazardous technology or  are engaged in manufacture of hazardous goods and if  proper and  adequate precautions are not taken, they too are  likely to  endanger the  life  and  health  of  the community. We  would therefore  suggest that  a High Powered Authority should  be set  up by  the government  of India in consultation  with   the  Central   Board   for   overseeing functioning of  hazardous industries with a view to ensuring that there  are no  defects or  deficiencies in  the design, structure or  quality of their plant and machinery, there is no negligence  in maintenance and operation of the plant and equipment and  necessary safety  devices and instruments are installed and  are in  operation  and  proper  and  adequate safety standards  and procedures are strictly followed. This is  a   question  which   needs  serious  attention  of  the Government of  India and  we would request the Government of India to  take the  necessary steps at the earliest, because the problem  of danger  to the  health and well-being of the community  on   account  of  chemical  and  other  hazardous industries  has   become  a   pressing  problem   in  modern industrial society.  It is  also necessary to point out that when science  and technology  are increasingly  employed  in producing goods  and  services  calculated  to  improve  the quality of  life, there  is a  certain element  of hazard or risk inherent  in the very use of science and technology and it is  not possible to totally eliminate such hazard or risk altogether. We  cannot possibly adopt a policy of not having any Chemical  or other  hazardous industries  merely because they pose  hazard or risk to the community. If such a policy were adopted,  it would  mean the  end of  all progress  and development. Such  industries, even  if hazardous have to be set up since they are essential for economic development and advancement of well-being of the people. We can only hope to reduce the  element of  hazard or  risk to  the community by taking all necessary steps for locating such industries in a manner  which  would  pose  least  risk  of  danger  to  the community  and   maximising  safety   requirements  in  such industries. We  would therefore  like to  impress  upon  the Government of India to evolve a national policy for location

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 25  

of chemical  and other  hazardous industries  in areas where population is  scarce and  there is little hazard or risk to the community,  and when hazardous industries are located in such areas, every care must be taken to see that large human habi 345 tation does not grow around then. There should preferably be a green  belt of  1 to  5 k.m.  width around  such hazardous industries.      There is  also one other matter to which we should like to draw  the attention  of the  Government of India. We have noticed that  in the  past few  years there is an increasing trend  in   the  number  of  cases  based  on  enviornmental pollution and  ecological destruction  coming up  before the Courts. Many  such cases  concerning the  material basis  of livelihood of  millions of  poor people  and  reaching  this Court by way of Public interest litigation. In most of these cases there  is need  for neutral scientific expertise as an essential input  to inform  judicial decision  making. These cases require  expertise at  a high  level of scientific and technical  sophistication.   We  felt   the  need  for  such expertise in  this very  case and  we had to appoint several expert committees  to inform  the court  as to what measures were required  to be adopted by the Management of Shriram to safeguard  against  the  hazard  or  possibility  of  leaks, explosion, pollution  of air  and water etc. and how many of the  safety  devices  against  this  hazard  or  possibility existed in  the plant  and which  of them, though necessary, were not  installed. We have great difficulty in finding out independent expertes  who would  be able to advise the court on these  issues. Since  there is  at present no independent and  competent   machinery  to  generate,  gather  and  make available   the    necessary   scientific    and   technical information, we had to make an effort on our own to identify experts who  would provide reliable scientific and technical input necessary  or the  decision of  the case  and this was obviously a difficult and by its very nature, unsatisfactory exercise. It  is therefore  absolutely essential  that there should  be   an  independent   Centre  with   professionally competent and  public spirited experts to provide the needed scientific  and   technological  input.   We  would  in  the circumstances urge upon the Government of India to set up an Ecological   Sciences    Research   Group    consisting   of independent, professionally  competent experts  in different branches of  science and  technology, who  would act  as  an information  bank   for  the   Court  and   the   Government Departments and  generate new  information according  to the particular  requirements  of  the  Court  or  the  concerned Government  department.   We  would   also  suggest  to  the Government of  India that  since cases  involving issues  of enviornmental pollution, 346 ecological destruction  and conflicts over natural resources are increasingly  coming up for adjudication and these cases involve assessment and evolution of scientific and technical data, it  might be desirable to set up Environment Courts on the regional  basis with  one  professional  Judge  and  two experts drawn  from the  Ecological Sciences  Research Group keeping in  view the  nature of  the case  and the expertise required for  its adjudication.  There would  of-course be a right of  appeal to  this Court  from the  decision  of  the Enviornment Court.      We have  in this  judgment dealt only with the question as to  whether Shriram  should be  allowed  to  restart  its caustic chlorine  plant and  other plants  manufacturing by-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 25  

products and  if so,  subject to  what conditions. There are many other  issues of  seminal importance arising out of the claims for  compensation by  victims of olium gas which have to be  considered by  the Court.  We have  formulated  these issues and  asked the petitioner and those supporting him in W.P. 12739  of 1985  to file their written submissions on or before 24th February, 1986 and Shriram to file their written submissions on  or before 28th February, 1986 so that we can take up the hearing of the writ petitions on 3rd March 1986.      Before we  part with  this judgment  we would  like  to express  our   deep  sense  of  appreciation  for  the  bold initiative taken  by the  petitioner in bringing this public interest litigation  before the  Court. The  petitioner  has rendered signal  service to  the community  by bringing this public interest  litigation and  he has  produced before the Court considerable material bearing on the issues arising in the litigation.  He has argued his case with great sincerety and dedication  and the  people of Delhi must be grateful to him for  espousing such a public cause. There is no doubt in our mind  that  but  for  this  public  interest  litigation brought  by   the  petitioner,  there  would  have  been  no improvement in  the design,  structure and  quality  of  the machinery and  equipment in  the caustic  chlorine plant nor would any proper and adequate safety devices and instruments have been  installed nor  would there have been any pressure on the management to observe safety standards and procedures and the  possibility cannot  be ruled  out that perhaps some day olium gas tragedy might have been repeated but this time with chlorine  gas which  is admittedly  more dangerous than olium gas. Though lone and 347 single, he  has fought  a valiant  battle  against  a  giant enterprise  and   achieved  substantial  success.  We  would therefore as a token of our appreciation of the work done by the petitioner  direct that  a sum  of Rs. 10,000 be paid by Shriram to the petitioner by way of costs. S.R. 348