http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: SUBHASH KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/01/1991

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) OJHA, N.D. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR  420            1991 SCR  (1)   5  1991 SCC  (1) 598        JT 1991 (1)    77  1991 SCALE  (1)8

ACT:      Water  (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act,  1974: Sections 17, 24, 25 and 26. Constitution  of  India,  1950:  Article  21-Right  to  live includes right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air- A  citizen  has a right to invoke Article  32  for  removing pollution.      Article 32- Writ petition in public interest-Allegation that West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel  Company are  polluting the river Bokaro by discharging  slurry  from their  washeries into the river-No material to  substantiate the allegations-Held petition is not in public interest  but for personal interest.      Public  Interest Litigation-Should be resorted to by  a person  genuinely interested in the protection  of  society- Personal  interest cannot be enforced in the garb of  public interest  litigation-Entertainment of  petitions  satisfying personal grudge is abuse of process of the Court Duty of the court is to discourage such petitions.

HEADNOTE:      The  petitioner filed a writ petition in this court  by way   of  public  interest  litigation  alleging  that   the respondents, West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and  Steel Company   (TISCO)  were  polluting  the  river   Bokaro   by discharging  surplus waste in the form of  sludge/slurry  as effluent  from their washeries into river making  the  river water  unfit  for drinking and irrigation  purposes  thereby causing risk to the health of the people; the State of Bihar and  the State Pollution Control Board have failed  to  take appropriate  steps  for  prevention  of  the  pollution  and instead  the State of Bihar has granted leases on payment of royalty   to  various  persons  for  collection  of  slurry. Accordingly  the  petitioner prayed for  directions  to  the respondents   to  take  immediate  steps   prohibiting   the pollution  of  the river and to take  legal  action  against TISCO under the Water (Prevention and Control of  Pollution) Act, 1974.  The petitioner also claimed interim relief  from this   Court  that  he  should  be  permitted   to   collect sludge/slurry flowing out of washeries of the respondents.                                                        6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

    The  respondents  contested the  petition  denying  the petitioner’s  allegations.   Bihar  State  Pollution   Board asserted  that  directions have been issued  to  the  Bokaro Collieries to take effective steps for improving the quality of  the  effluent going into the river Bokaro and  that  the TISCO Company has been granted permission to discharge their effluents from their outlets in accordance with sections  25 and 26 of the 1974 Act.  On behalf of TISCO and  the  Bokaro Collieries  it was contended that all effective  steps  have been  taken to prevent the pollution and they have  complied with the instructions of the State Pollution Board.      By an order dated 13.12.1990, this Court dismissed  the writ petition with costs.      Giving  reasons  for dismissal of  the  petition,  this Court,      HELD: 1. Article 32 is designed for the enforcement  of Fundamental  Rights  of  a citizen by the  Apex  Court.   It provides  for  an  extra-ordinary remedy  to  safeguard  the fundamental  rights  of  a  citizen.  Right  to  life  is  a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water  and air  for full enjoyment of life.  If anything  endangers  or impairs  that  quality  of life in  derogation  of  laws,  a citizen  has  right to have recourse to Article  32  of  the Constitution  for  removing the pollution of  water  or  air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.  A petition under  Article  32  for  the  prevention  of  pollution   is maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even  by a  group of social workers or journalists.  But recourse  to proceeding  under Article 32 of the Constitution  should  be taken  by person genuinely interested in the  protection  of society  on  behalf  of  the  community.   Public   interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of  persons to  satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity.  If  such petitions  under Article 32 are entertained it would  amount to  abuse of process of the Court, preventing speedy  remedy to  other  genuine  petitioners from  this  Court.  Personal interest  cannot  be enforced through the  process  of  this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of  a public  interest  litigation.   Public  interest  litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of  fundamental  rights of a group of persons  or  community which  are not able to enforce their fundamental  rights  on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law.  A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Curt under  Article 32  must  approach  this Court for the  vindication  of  the fundamental  rights  of  affected persons and  not  for  the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity.  It is duty of this Court to                                                        7 discourage such  petitions and to ensure that the  course of justice  is  not  obstructed  or  polluted  by  unscrupulous litigants  by  invoking the extra-ordinary  jurisdiction  of this   Court  for  personal matters under the  garb  of  the public interest litigation. [13C-H; 14A]      Bandhua  Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, [1984]  2  SCR 67; Sachindanand Pandey v. State of West Begal, [1987] 2 SCC 295; Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] Suppl. 1 SCC 251; Chetriya Pardushan Mukti  Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1990] 4 SCC  449,  referred to.      2.   The  present  petition  is  not  filed  in  public interest   instead  the  petition  has  been  made  by   the petitioner  in his own interest.  Infact there is  intrinsic evidence in the petition itself that the primary purpose  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

filing  this  petition is not to serve any  public  interest instead  it  is in self-interest.  The petitioner  has  been purchasing slurry from the respondents for the last  several years.  With  the passage of time he wanted  more  and  more slurry  but the Company refused to accept his  request.   He removed the Company’s slurry in an  unauthorised manner  for which  criminal  cases  are  pending  against  him  and  his brother.   Since  the  respondent company  refused  to  sell additional  slurry  he  entertained  a  grudge  against  the company  and  in order to feed fat his  personal  grudge  he resorted   to  several  proceedings  against   the   company including  the  present  one.  The prayer  for  the  interim relief  made  by  the  petitioner  i.e.  permitting  him  to arrest/collect sludge/slurry flowing out of the washeries of the respondents with a direction to the State of Bihar,  its officers  and other authorities for not preventing him  from collecting the sludge/slurry and transporting the same  also collecting   the  sludge/slurry and  transporting  the  same clearly  indicates that he is interested in  collecting  the slurry  and  transporting the same for the purposes  of  his business.  Therefore, there is no good reason to accept  the petitioner’s allegation that  the water of the river  Bokaro is being polluted by the discharge of sludge or slurry  into it  form  the washeries of the respondent-company.   On  the other  hand  it  is  evident  from  records that  the  State Pollution  Control Board has taken effective steps to  check the pollution. [14B;12F-G]      Kundori Labours Cooperative Society Ltd. & etc. etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1986 Patna 242; Bharat Cokin Coal Ltd.  v. State of Bihar & Ors. [1990] 3 SCR  744=  Judgments Today, vol. 3, 1990 SCC 533, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION:  Writ Petition (C) No.  381  of 1998.                                                        8      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      S.K. Sinha for the Petitioner.      D. Goburdhan, Ms. A. Subhashini, K.K. Lahiri, Ms.  Lira Goswami and D.N. Misra for the Respondents.      The Judgement of the Court was delivered by      SINGH,J.   We heard the arguments in detail  on  13.12. 1990 and dismissed the petition with costs amounting to  Rs. 5,000 with the direction that the reasons shall be delivered later on.  We are, accordingly, delivering our reasons.      This  petition is under Article 32 of the  Constitution by  Subhash  Kumar  for the issue of  a  writ  or  direction directing the director of Collieries, West Bokaro Collieries at Ghatotand, District Hazaribagh in the State of Bihar  and the  Tata from & Steel Co. Ltd. to stop forthwith  discharge of  slurry/sludge  from its washeries at  Ghatotand  in  the District of Hazaribagh into Bokaro river.  This petition  is by  way  of public interest litigation  for  preventing  the pollution  of the Bokaro river water from the  sludge/slurry discharged  form the washeries of the Tata Iron &  Steel Co. Ltd.   The  petitioner has alleged that the  Parliament  has enacted the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974  (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)  providing  for the  prevention  and  control of water   pollution  and  the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water, for  the establishment  of  Board for the prevention and  control  of water pollution.  Under the provisions of the Act the  State Pollution  Control Board constituted to carry out  functions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

prescribed  under  Section 17 of the Act which  among  other things provide that the Board shall inspect sewage or  trade effluents  and plants for the treatment of sewage and  trade effluents and to review plans, specifications or other  data set up for the treatment of water and to lay down  standards to  be complied with by the persons while causing  discharge of  sewage or sullage.  Section 24 of the Act provides  that no  person  shall knowingly cause or permit  any  poisonous, noxious  or  polluting matter to enter into  any  stream  or well,  which  may  lead  to  a  substantial  aggravation  of pollution.   The petitioner has asserted that Tata Iron  and Steel Co-respondent No.5 carries on mining operation in coal mines/washeries in the town of Jamshedpur.  These coal mines and  collieries are known as West Bokaro Collieries and  the Collieries have two coal washeries where the coal after  its extraction from the mines is brought and broken into  graded pieces and there-                                                        9 after  it is processed for the purpose of reducing  its  ash contents.  A chemical process is carried out which is  known as  ‘froth  floatation  process’.  Under  this  process  the graded  coal  is mixed with diesel oil, pine  oil  and  many other chemical ingredients and thereafter it is washed  with the lacs of gallons of water.  The end water is washed  coal with  reduced  quantity of ash content fit for  high  graded metallurgical  process  for the purposes of  manufacture  of steel.  In the process of washing large quantity of water is discharged through pipes which carry the discharged water to storage ponds constructed for the purpose of retaining   the slurry.  Along with the discharged water, small particles of coal  are carried away to the pond where the coal  particles settle  down  on the surface of the pond, and  the  same  is collected after the pond is de-watered.  The coal  particles which  are  carried away by the water is called  the  slurry which is ash free, it contains fine quality of coal which is used as fuel.      The  petitioner has alleged that the surplus  waste  in the form of sludge/slurry is discharged as an effluent  from the washeries into the Bokaro river which gets deposited  in the  bed  of  the river and it also  gets  settled  on  land including the petitioner’s land bearing Plot No.170.  He was further  alleged  that  the  sludge  or  slurry  which  gets deposited on the agricultural land, is absorbed by the  land leaving  on the top a fine carbonaceous product or  film  on the soil, which adversely affects the fertility of the land. The petitioner has further alleged that the effluent in  the shape  of  slurry is flown into the Bokaro  river  which  is carried  out  by  the  river water  to  the  distant  places polluting  the  river water as a result of which  the  river water  is  not fit for drinking purposes nor it is  fit  for irrigation purposes.  The continuous discharge of slurry  in heavy  quantity  by  the  Tata Iron &  Steel  Co.  from  its washeries posing risks to the health of people living in the surrounding  areas  and as a result of  such  discharge  the problem  of  pure  drinking water  has  became  acute.   The petitioner   has   asserted   that   inspite   of    several representations,  the  State of Bihar  and  State  Pollution Control  Board  have failed to take any action  against  the Company  instead  they have permitted the pollution  of  the river water.  He has further averred that the State of Bihar instead  of taking any action against the Company  has  been granting  leases on payment of royalty to   various  persons for the collection  of slurry.  He has, accordingly, claimed relief  for  issue of direction  directing  the  respondents which  include  the  State of  Bihar,  the  Bihar  Pollution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

Control  Board, Union of India and Tata Iron & Steel Co.  to take  immediate  steps prohibiting the pollution  of  Bokaro river  water  from the discharge of slurry into  the  Bokaro river and to take further action under provisions of the Act against the Tata Iron & Steel Co.                                                        10      The   respondents  have  contested  the  petition   and counter-affidavits   have  been  filed  on  behalf  of   the respondent  Nos. 2, 4 and 5-State of Bihar, State  Pollution Board,  Directors  of Collieries and Tata Iron &  Steel  Co. Ltd.   In  the  counter-affidavits filed on  behalf  of  the respondents,  the  petitioner’s  main  allegation  that  the sludge/slurry  is  being discharged into  the  river  Bokaro causing  pollution  to the water and the land and  that  the Bihar  State Pollution Board has not taken steps to  prevent the  same  is  denied.  In the  counter-affidavit  filed  on behalf  of  the Bihar State Pollution Board it  is  asserted that  the  Tata  Iron & Steel Co.  operates  open  case  and underground  mining.  The Company in accordance to  Sections 25  and  26 of the Water (Prevention Control  of  Pollution) Act,  1974 applied for sanction from the Board of  discharge their  effluent  from  their  outlets.   The  Board   before granting  sanction analysed their effluent which  was  being watched constantly and monitored to see that the  discharges does  not  affect  the water quality  of  the  Bokaro  river adversely.   In  order to prevent the  pollution  the  Board issued direction to the Director  of the Collieries to  take effective  steps for improving the quality of  the  effluent going  into  the Bokaro river.  The  State  Pollution  Board imposed  conditions requiring the Company to  construct  two settling  tanks for settlement of solids and  rewashing  the same.    The  Board directed for the regular  samples  being taken   and  tested  for  suspended  solids  and   for   the communication of the results of the tests to the Board  each month.   The State Board has asserted that the  Company  has constructed  four  ponds ensuring more storing  capacity  of effluent.   The  Pollution  Board has  been  monitoring  the effluent.   It is further stated that on the receipt of  the notice of the instant writ petition the Board carried out an inspection  of the settling tanks regarding the treatment of the  effluent  from the washeries on 20th  June,  1988.   On inspection it was found that all the four settling tanks had already been completed and work for further strengthening of the  embankment of the tanks was in progress, and there  was no  discharge  of  effluent from the  washeries  into  river Bokaro   except that there was negligible seepage  from  the embankment.  It is further stated that the Board  considered all the aspects and for further improvement it directed  the management  of  the  collieries for removal  of  the  settle slurry  from  the tanks.  The Board has  directed  that  the washeries shall perform desludging of the settling tanks  at regular intervals to achieve the proper  required  retention time  for the separation of solids and to achieve  discharge of  effluents within the standards prescribed by the  Board. It is further asserted that at present there is no discharge from  any of the tanks of the Bokaro river and there  is  no question  of pollution of the river water of  affecting  the fertility  of land. In their affidavits files on  behalf  of the respondent-                                                      11 Nos. 4 and 5, they have also denied the allegations made  in the  petition.  They have asserted that the effective  steps have  been taken to prevent the flow of the water  discharge from the washeries into the river Bokaro.  it is stated that infact  river Bokaro remains dry during 9 months in  a  year

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

and  the  question  of pollution of water  by  discharge  of slurry  into  the  river  does  not  arise.   However,   the management of the washeries have constructed from  different ponds to store the slurry.  The slurry which settles in  the pounds  is collected for sale.  The slurry  contains  highly carbonaceous  materials and it is considered  very  valuable for  the purpose of fuel as the ash contents are almost  nil in  the coal particles found in the slurry.  Since,  it  has high  market value, the Company would not like it to  go  in the  river water.  The Company has taken effective steps  to ascertain  that  no  slurry escapes from its  ponds  at  the slurry  is highly valuable.  The Company has been  following the  directions issued by the State Pollution Control  Board constituted under the 1974 Act.      On  the facts as appearing from the pleadings  and  the specific averments contained in the counter-affidavit  filed on  behalf  of the State Pollution Control Board  of  Bihar, prima  facie  we do not find any good reason to  accept  the petitioner’s  allegation that the water of the river  Bokaro is being polluted by the discharged of sludge or slurry into it  from  the washeries of the respondent-company.   On  the other  hand we find that the State Pollution  Control  Board has taken effective steps to check the pollution.  We do not consider  it necessary to delve into greater detail  as  the present  petition  does  not appear to have  been  filed  in public  interest instead the petition has been made  by  the petitioner in his own interest.      On  a perusal of the counter-affidavit filed on  behalf of  the  respondent  Nos.  4  and  5  it  appears  that  the petitioner  has  been purchasing slurry from  the respondent Nos.  4 and 5 for the last several years.  With the  passage of time he wanted more and more slurry, but the  respondent- company refused to accept his request.  The petitioner is an influential businessman, he had obtained a licence for  coal trading, he tried to put pressure through various sources on the  respondent-company for supplying him more  quantity  of slurry  but  when  the Company refused  to  succumb  to  the pressure, he started harassing the Company.  He removed  the Company’s  slurry  in  an unauthorised manner  for  which  a Criminal Case No., 173 of 1987 under Sections 379 and 411 of the  Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the  Essential Commodities  Act was registered against the  petitioner  and Pradip  Kumar his brother at Police Station Mandu, which  is pending before-                                                   12 the Sub-Judge, Hazaribagh.  One Shri Jugal Kishore  Jayaswal also filed a criminal complaint under Section 379 and 411 of the IPC against the petitioner and his brother Pradip  Kumar in   the   Court  of  Judicial  Magistrate,   First   Class, Hazaribagh,  which  is  also pending  before  the  Court  of Judicial  Magistrate, 2nd Class Hazaribagh.  The  petitioner initiated several proceedings before the High Court of Patna under Article 226 of the constitution for permitting him  to collect slurry from the Raiyati land.  These petitions  were dismissed on the ground of existence of dispute relating  to the title of the land.  The petitioner filed a writ petition C.W.J.C.  No.  887 of 199o in the High Court  of  Patna  for taking  action against the Deputy  Commissioner,  Hazaribagh for  implementing the Full Bench judgment of the Patna  High Court  in  Kundori Labours Cooperative Society Ltd.  &  etc. etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1986 Patna 242 wherein it was  held  that  the slurry was  neither  coal  nor  mineral instead it was an industrial waste of coal mine, not subject to  the provisions of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation  and Development)  Act,  1957.  Consequently  the  collection  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

slurry which escaped from the washeries could be settled  by the  State Government with any person without obtaining  the sanction of the Central Government.  The petitioner has been contending  before the High Court that the slurry which  was discharged from washeries did not belong to the Company  and he was entitled to collect the same.  Since the  respondent- company prevented the petitioner from collecting slurry from its  land and as it further refused to sell  any  additional quantity  of slurry to him, he  entertained  grudge  against the  respondent-company.  In order to  feed fat his personal grudge  he  has   taken  several  proceedings  against   the respondent-company including the present proceedings.  These facts are quite apparent from the pleadings of  the  parties and the documents placed before the Court.  Infact,there  is intrinsic  evidence in the petition itself that the  primary purpose of filling this petition is  not to serve any public interest  instead it is in self-interest as would  be  clear from  the prayer made by the petitioner in the interim  stay application.  The petitioner claim interim relief from  this Court permitting him to arrest/collect sludge/slurry flowing out   of the washeries of the respondent Nos. 4 and   5  and with   a direction to the State of Bihar, its officers   and other  authorities  for not preventing him  from  collecting the sludge/slurry and transporting the same.  The prayer for the interim relief made by the petitioner clearly  indicates that  he   is  interested  in  collecting  the  slurry   and transporting the same for the purposes of his business.   As already  state a Full Bench of the  Patna High  Court   held that   the  slurry was not coal and the  provisions  of  the Mines  and    Mineral (Regulation  and   Development)   Act, 1957  were not applicable, the State Government was tree  to settle the same-                                                        13 and   the Tata Steel & Iron  Co. had no  right  to   collect the   slurry   which  escaped  from  its   washeries.    The respondent-company  filed  an  appeal   before  this  Court. During    the   pendency  of  the   aforesaid  appeal,   the petitioner   filed   the  present  petition.    The   appeal preferred  by  the Tata Iron & Steel  Co.  Ltd.  and  Bharat Coking  Coal Ltd. was   allowed by this  Court and  judgment of  Patna  High Court was set aside.  The judgment  of  this Court  is  reported in Judgments today Vol. 3  1990  SC  533 wherein it  has been  held that the slurry/coal deposited on any and continues to be coal and the State Government has no authority  in  law  to deal with the  same  and  the  slurry deposited  on the Company’s land belongs to the Company  and no other person had authority to collect the same.      Article   32  is  designed  for  the   enforcement   of Fundamental  Rights  of  a citizen by the  Apex  Court.   It provides  for  an extraordinary procedure to  safeguard  the Fundamental  Rights  of  a  citizen.  Right  to  live  is  a fundamental  right under Art 21 of the Constitution  and  it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water  and air  for  full enjoyment of life. If anything  endangers  or impairs  that  quality  of life in  derogation  of  laws,  a citizen  has  right  to  have recourse to  Art,  32  of  the Constitution  for  removing the pollution  of water  or  air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.  A petition under   Art.   32  for  the  prevention  of   pollution   is maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even  by a  group of social workers or journalists.  But recourse  to preceeding under Art. 32 of the Constitution should be taken by  a  person  genuinely interested  in  the  protection  of society  on  behalf  of  the  community.   Public   interest litigation  cannot be invoked by a person or body or  person

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

to  satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity.  if  such petitions under Article 32, are entertained it would  amount to  abuse of process of the Court, preventing speedy  remedy to  other  genuine  petitioner from  this  Court.   Personal interest  cannot  be enforced through the  process  of  this Court  under  Art. 32 of the Constitution in the garb  of  a public  interest  litigation.  Public  interest   litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of  fundamental  rights of a group of persons  or  community which  are not able to enforce their fundamental  rights  on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law.  A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 must  approach  this  Court  for  the  vindication  of   the fundamental  rights  of  affected persons and  not  for  the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity.  It is  duty of this Court to discourage such petitions  and  to ensure  that  the  course of justice is  not  obstructed  or polluted   by   unscrupulous  litigants  by   invoking   the extraordinary  jurisdiction  of  this  Court  for   personal matters under the garb-                                                   14 of  the public interest litigation see Bandhua Mukti  Morcha v. Union of India, [1984] 2 SCR 67;  Pandey v. State of West Bengal,  [1987] 2 SCC 295 at 331; Ramsharan  Autyanuprasi  & Anr. v. Union  of India & Ors., [1989] Suppl. 1 SCC 251  and Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of  U.P. & Ors., [1990] 4 SCC 449.      In  view of the above discussion we are of the  opinion that this petition has been filed not in any public interest but  for  the petitioner’s personal interest and  for  these reasons  we  dismissed  the  same  and  directed  that   the petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000 as costs.  These costs are to be paid to the respondent Nos. 3,4 & 5. T.N.A.                                      Petitions dismissed                                                        15