http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2991 of 2004

PETITIONER: Modern Terry Towel Ltd.  

RESPONDENT: Solanki Muljibhai Revabhai Harijan Vyas & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/2004

BENCH: CJI & G.P. MATHUR.

JUDGMENT: J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

(arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11462/2002)

RAJENDRA BABU,  CJI :

       Leave granted.          

       A writ petition was filed in the High Court by a  resident within the vicinity of a unit of the appellant on  the allegation that the appellant was letting out its  trade effluents outside factory premises.  On  16.12.1996 the High Court appointed a Committee to  make a report regarding discharge of effluent.  On the  filing of Report by that Committee a show cause notice  was issued to the appellant on 26.12.1996 in the light  of the contents thereof. Thereafter,  the High Court on  9.1.1997 directed the closure of the factory.  In the  course of the order made by the High Court it was  noticed that the appellant could not say that there was  no discharge of trade effluent.  The High Court directed  the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000/- and also  ordered its closure.  On 16.1.1997 by another order  made the High Court directed the appellant to deposit a  sum of Rs. 75 lakhs as a condition for restarting of the  unit .  On depositing such amounts in instalments the  High Court directed restarting of certain activities which  do not generate any kind of effluent.  Then by an order  made on 27.1.1998 the High Court disposed of the  matter.  In the course of the order made on that day it  was noticed that an agreement had been entered into  between the petitioner and certain other persons  residing in the village with the appellant;  that effluent  treatment plant (ETP) was about to be commissioned  and this would include training of the people of the  industry for the operation and of the maintenance of  the ETP;  that the report filed by the Gujarat Pollution  Control Board on examining the samples collected on  20.01.1999 indicated that the appellant is meeting the  norms; that the petitioners and others in the writ  petition filed before the High Court had been paid  damages arising on account of discharge of effluents  and had entered into an agreement which was filed  before the High Court;  and that the unit having met  with the requirements of the Gujarat Pollution Control  Board.  On that basis, the High Court disposed of the  writ petition allowing the same to be withdrawn.

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

However, as regards the refund of the amount  deposited by the appellant before the Court, the High  Court stated that this aspect could be considered at a  later stage.    

       Thereafter,  an application was made for refund of  the said amount in deposit.  The High Court disposed of  that application without making any order by making it  clear that such application could be revived after the  cases pending before this Court are disposed of.    

       In this appeal, it is urged before us that the writ  petition having been withdrawn and the concerned  persons who had suffered damage on account of  discharge of effluents having been compensated,  question of continuing to keep the said amounts  deposited in Court would not arise. It is further  submitted that this case stands entirely on different  footing from other cases pending before this Court  because in other cases discharge of effluent was to a  common ETP while no such discharge had been made  in this case, except some of the effluents having been  discharged into lands surrounding the factory.

       Degradation of environment or damage, if any,   suffered by the residents residing in the vicinity having  been satisfied with the compensation paid to them in  terms of the agreement which was produced before the  High Court, the ETP having been set up and with  pollution control norms having been satisfied,  the High  Court ought to have considered question of refund of  the amounts deposited with Court and should have  treated this case on a different footing altogether and  not connected with other cases pending before this  Court.

       Therefore,  we set aside the order made by the  High Court, remit the matter to the High Court for fresh  consideration of the application for refund and to  dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

       The appeal is allowed accordingly.