http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BHAVANI RIVER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SAKTHI SUGARS LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/07/1998

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  is directed against the judgment and order of a  Division Bench  of the  High Court  of  Judicature  at Madras in  Wrist Petition No. 17333 of 1995 dated 17th July, 1997.      After hearing  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and examining the record we are satisfied that the matter before the High  Court was  one of  public interest and required an in-depth examination by the court. The Division Bench of the High Court,  it appears to us, failed to appreciate the true significance of  the matter regarding the need to arrest the unabated pollution,  which had  become a  health hazard  and environmental enemy  because of  discharge of  objectionable effluents  from   the  distillery  into  Bhavani  River  and adjoining areas.  The High Court feel in error to dispose of the writ  petition merely  on the  consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control  Board. Matters  like this,  which involve greater public  interest  should  not  normally  be  decided merely on  consent of  the Pollution  Control Board.  We are somewhat unhappy  about the  manner in  which the  Pollution Control Board  gave  its  consent  unmindful  of  the  grave consequences, which  have been amply demonstrated before us. The order of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. We, accordingly,  allow this  appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and remand the writ petition to it for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.      During the  pendency of  the proceedings in this court, certain affidavits  and undertakings were filed on behalf of the industry  respondent No. 6, and on 29th January, 1998 we gave certain  directions including  the  direction  for  the closure of  the operation  of the Industry (respondent No.6) on or  before  2nd  February,  1998  because  of  continuing pollution from  its distillery  and sugar  division. We also directed inspection of the industry and the site adjacent to it by  NEERI, who  was also asked to submit a report to this Court  whether  the  pollution  control  devices  have  been installed by  the Industry and proper steps taken to control pollution in  accordance with  the provisions  of the  Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Act)  or  not.  NEERI  was  also  directed  to  inspect  the surrounding areas  with a  view to assess damage, caused due to discharge of effluent by the Industry and to indicate the cost of restitution.      Pursuant  to  the  directions  issued  by  us  on  29th January, 1998,  NEERI has  submitted two  reports. The first inspection report  was submitted on 9th March, those reports and since  we are  remanding the  writ perused those reports and since  we are  remanding the  writ petition  to the High Court for  its disposal,  it appears  appropriate to  us, to request the  High Court  to consider  those reports  and the suggestions made  therein while  passing orders  in the Writ Petition from time to time.      Mr. Venugopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Industry, submits  that remedial  steps  have  already  been taken as  suggested by  this Court  as well  as by NEERI and that  Pollution  to  prevent  pollution  of  water  and  the Industry may, therefore, be permitted to operate.      Mr. Harish  Salve, learned  amicus curiae  on the other hand submits that all steps required to check pollution have not been taken and in support of his submission, relies upon the two reports submitted by NEERI to this Court.      The High Court may, therefore:      1.    Consider in consultation with      NEERI, whether  the Industry may be      permitted to  have a  test  run  or      become operational and, if so, with      what  further   safeguards   and/or      remedial measures  to be taken. For      this  purpose  NEERI  shall  appear      before the High Court of Madras and      inform  the   Court  regarding  the      viability of  the Industry starting      either  the   test   run   or   its      operation.  The   High  Court  may,      thereafter, pass appropriate orders      regarding the lifting of the ban on      operations  which  was  imposed  by      this Court  on operations which was      imposed by this Court on 26.1.1998.      2.   The High Court may also direct      supervision by  any of the agencies      including NEERI  or  the  Pollution      Control Board,  with a  view to see      that the  Industry does  not  cause      any type  of pollution,  in case it      is permitted to become operational.      3.   The  High   Court  shall  also      examine the question of restitution      of the  areas damaged on account to      the pollution  already caused.  The      costs  of   the  pollution  already      caused.   The    costs    of    the      restitution shall  be borne by M/s.      was requested to submit its report.      4.    The  High Court shall monitor      the  case  till  such  time  as  is      considered necessary by it .      The High  Court may  appoint amicus curiae to assist it for disposal  of the  case and burden the Industry with such costs as it may deem  fit.      The parties, through their learned counsel are directed to appear  before the  High Court on 6th August, 1998. NEERI shall also  be requested  to appear before the High Court on the same  date to  give its  opinion  on  technical  matters

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

regarding the operational viability of the Industry.      In so  for as  the costs  in this  Court are concerned, learned  amicus   curiae,  Mr.   Harish  Salve  assisted  by Mr.S.Muralidhar  Services   Committee.  We   appreciate  the gesture show  by the  learned counsel. We also wish to place on record  our appreciation  for the  assistance rendered by Mr.Harish Salve, Senior Advocate and Mr.S.Muralidhar in this Court.      The Industry  M/s.Sakthi Sugars  Ltd., Tamil Nadu shall pay a  sum of  Rs. 20,000/-  by way of costs, which shall be deposited in the account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within one week.      The Registry  shall transmit the complete record of the case to  the High Court without any delay. The record may be sent by  courier for  which the  expenses shall  be borne by respondent No. 6.