Supreme Court of India
M.C. MEHTA & ANR. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 19
- Decided
- 17 February 1986
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- P N BHAGWATI
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the caustic‑chlorine plant may be restarted provided that all safety recommendations of the expert committees are complied with and the plant is operated under the strict conditions enumerated by the Court, while the prohibitory orders are suspended pending further compliance.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest writ petition filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta on behalf of Delhi residents challenging two orders that prohibited Shriram Foods & Fertiliser Industries from operating its caustic‑chlorine plant in a densely populated area of Delhi. After a series of oleum‑gas leaks in December 1985, the District Magistrate, the Inspector of Factories and the Assistant Commissioner (Factories) had ordered the plant’s shutdown under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Factories Act and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Multiple expert committees (Manmohan Singh, Agarwal, Nilay Choudhary, Seturaman) examined safety and pollution‑control measures and recommended relocation, but the management claimed compliance with their recommendations. The Court, after appointing a further expert committee that found substantial compliance, held that the plant could be restarted provided stringent safety, monitoring and compensation conditions were imposed, and it suspended (but did not vacate) the earlier prohibitory orders. The judgment also directed temporary water‑consent renewal, continuous oversight by expert and factory inspectors, and suggested the creation of specialised environmental courts and a national policy for locating hazardous industries.
Issues considered
- Whether the caustic‑chlorine plant can be allowed to restart despite the risk of chlorine leakage
- Whether the orders issued under the Factories Act and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act should be vacated or suspended
- What conditions, if any, must be imposed to ensure safety of workers and the surrounding community
- Whether relocation of the plant is required under environmental and public‑health considerations
- How the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 apply to the plant’s operations
- Liability for compensation to victims of the oleum‑gas leaks
Legislation cited
- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981s. 19(1), s. 21
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 133(1)
- Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957s. 430(3)
- Factories Act, 1948s. 40(2)
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974s. 19(1), s. 21, s. 25
Subjects
public interest litigationenvironmental lawhazardous industrychlorine plantindustrial safetypollution controlArticle 32Supreme Courtexpert committeesrelocationcompensation
Judgment
312
A
M.C. MElITA & ANR. E'l'C.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & <llS. E'l'C.
FEBRUARY 17, 1986
B [P.N. BHAGWATI, C•. J., D.P. MADON AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]
Public Interest Litigation and enviro!ll!l!nt law - Power
of t~ 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
c 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, 1~57 and
section 133(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. r
D Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., a public limited company having
its reguterecl in Delhi runa an enterprise called Shriram
Pooda and Fertilizer Industries, which has several units
eagqecl in the 1181111factnre of caustic soda, chlorine, hydro-
chloric acid, 1table bleaching powder, superphosphate, vanaa-
pati, aoap, 1ulphuric acid, alua anhydrous sodium sulphate,
E high tut hypochlorite and active earth, These various units
are all Ht up in a si.ngle COIQ>lU situated in approxillately
76 acru and they are surrounded by thicltly populated colonies
Inch 11 Punjabi Bagh, Weat Patel Nagar, Karampura, Asholt ..
Vihar, · Trinqar, Shaetri Nagar and within a radius of 3 •
kil011etrea frOll thil complex there is a population of approrl- ~
F utely 200,000. The cau1tic chlorine plant wu coraissioned in
the year 1949 and it has a strength of about 263 employees'
includiag executives, aupenisora, staff and work.era.
In the Wike of the Bhopal gas tragedy realising the
lluardoue character of eau1tic chlorine plant of Shrirma, the
G Labour Mini1try of the Government of India cOlllliasioned
•tecbnica•, a f ira of couul tatl, Scientists and Engineer&• of
the United Xiaidoa who set out the areas of concern and
potential probl-, in their Report. Thereafter, the Dehi~'"
Adliiautration coutituted an Expert Comittee ·under the
Chair.a.hip of Mr.· llanohan Singh. This Coiiimittee Jllede
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. 313
A
~l various recmmiendations in regard to safety and pollution
control measures with a view to minillising ltasard to the
workmen and the public.
On December 4, 1985, a major leakage of oleua gas toolt
place frOll one of the units of Shri Ru and this lealtags B
. affected a large number of persons, both aongst the workmen
and the public and an Advocate practising in tlte Tis .Basari
Court died on account of inltalation of oleo11 gas. Thia leakage
resulted. from the borsting of tlte tank containing oleum gas aa
a result of the collapse of the structure on which it vu
1111unted and it· created a scare uongst tlte people residing in
that ares. Hardly had the pe0ple got out of the sltoclt of this c
disaster, when within two days, another leakage, though thia
time a minor one toolt place as a result of escape of oleum gaa
froa the joints of a. pipe. The 1-diste response of the Delhi
Adminilitration to these two leakages was the ulting of, an
order dated 6th December '85 by the District Magistrate Delhi,
under sub-section (1) of section 133 of tlte Code of Criainal D
"'· Procedure, directing and requiring Shriraa within two' days
from the date of issue of the order to cease carrying on the
occupation of 1111111ufacturing and processing ltasardona and
letltal chemicals and gases ilicluding chlorine, oleua, auper-
chlorine, phosphate etc. at their establishllent in Delhi and
within 7 days to remove such chemical• and gases from the said E
place and not again to lteep or store tltea at the s - place or
to appear on 17th December 85 in ~he Court of District
Magistrate, Delhi to allow cause why the order should not .be
enforced. In the meantime, the "Agarwal Coami~tee" appointed
•• by the Supreme Court .visited the caustic chlorine plant and
submitted a Report in which it pointed · out various
inadequacies in the plant and expressed the opinion that it
waa not possible to eliminate ltasard to the public so long as
the plant remained at.the present location.
F
Since there were conflicting opinions put forward in
regard to the question whether the caustic chlorine plant G
should be allowed to be restarted withont any real ltasard or
. risk to the woria.en and the public at large, another Expert
Comrlttee called "Nilay Chondhary Coamittee• vu constituted
by the Supreme Court, by its order dated 18th .Decaaber 85 •
.-I This Comittee visited the caustic . chlorine plant on Deceaber
· 28, 1985 and after considering Dr. Slater, llanaohan Singh H
Coaitt..,, Agarwal Comrlttee and after bearing the parties
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 1 s.c.R.
A
ude a r:!pOrt setting·· out 14 rece>mEDdatiou which in its
opinion .rere required to be COllpliecl with by the unagemnt in
order to minimise the hazards due to possible chlorine leak.
The Committee also pointed out thst it was in ogre-nt with
the rec~ations ude in the l!eport of the llmmohan Singh
eo.!ttee which were exhaustive in nature and obviously the
B re~tions ude by it in its l!eport were suppleMlltary
reco-ndation in addition to those contained in Maimohan
Singh Collllittee's Report.
In addition to these Comittees, the Lt. Governor of
Delhi also appointed an Expert Comittee called the •Seturaan
c Collllittee• which submitted its l!eport on 3rd Jannary, 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 poVer conferred under
section 40, sulMlection (2) of the Factories Act, 1948,
D prohibiting Shrir1111 frOll using caustic chlorine and sulphuric
acid plants till adequate · safety •asures are adopted and
iminent danger to human life ia eliminated. Soon thereafte.r,
on December 13, 1985 a show cause notice was issued by the
Assistant Comissioner (Factories) of the ltJnicipal Corpora-
tiop. of Delhi, calling upon Shrir1111 to show cause as to why
E action for revocation of its licence should not be taken under
section 430, sub-section (3) of the Delhi Municipal Corpora-
tion 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
F
but by an order dated 24th December' 85, the Assistant eo.ts-
sioner (Factories) directed Shriraa 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, Shrir1111 cannot restart ths caust le
chlorine plant. Hence the Shrirllll's Writ Petition challenging
G the said two orders.
Suspending the operation of the two ordera ad-interill to
enable Shriram to restart the plants for unufacture of
caustic chlorine including its by products, the Court laid
down as 11any as eleven conditions, and
H
M.C •. MEHTA v. u.o.r. 315
A
j
mru>: 1. All Expert Collllllittees 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 Collllllittees is that
relocation of the caustic chlorine plant is the only long term B
solution, if hazard to the community is to be completely
eliminated. lihether tile caustic chlorine plant should be
directed to be shifted or relocated . at a place where there
will be no hazard to the coammiW and if so, within what
time-frame, is a question which will require serious consider-
ation and a National Policy will have to be evolved by the
Government for location of toxic or hazardous industries and a c
decision will have to be taken in regard to relocation of such
industries with a view to eliminating risk to the cOlllllllllity
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 · D
-""'I' dang'erous to the life and ·health of the COtmmlllity and it
.escape~ either from the storage tanks or from the filled
cylinders or from any other point in the cause of production,
it is likely to Sffect the health and ....11 being of the
workmen and the people in the vicinity. Both Agarwal and
Manmohan Singh Colllllittees are agreed to their opinion that E
chlorine is s hazardous gas and though smaller concentrations
of chlorine iii 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
A Connittee (consisting of Dr. Manmohan Singh, Dr. Sharma, Prof. F
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, aiid
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 G
hazard, cannot be possible unless the caustic chlorine plant
is also restarted and severai other factors including the
PQ""r 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-R; H
331 C-D; 337 D-il]
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 l s.c.R.
A
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
B 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]
c 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,
D Additional Solicitor General, M.C. Mehta (Petitioner-in-per-
son); 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. Mahesh-
wari, M.C. Dua, Ravinder Bana, A.K. Nauriya, R.S. Sodhi and
Ms. Kitty Kumaramanglam for the appearing parties.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BllAQlATI, C.J. Writ Petition No. 12739 of 1985 which has
been brought by way of public interest litigation talses some
seminal questions concerning the true scope and alllbit of .Arts.
F, 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
G permitted so to function, what measures 1111st 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, )<- -
H lawyers, judges and jurists are considerably exercised as to
what controls, whether by way of relocation or by way of
M,C, MEHTA v. U.O.I. [BllAGWATI, C,J.] 317
A
_..\ ·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 B
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
-1. present case s irice on 4th and 6th Decemtier, 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 c
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 Industries to be rest_arted and that is D
the question which we are proceeding to decide in this
judgment. I
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 E
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 9re 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 Nager and Shastri Nager and
F
within a redius of 3 kilometres from this complex there is
population of approximately 200,000. We are concerned in this
Order orily with the caustic chlorine plant. This pl~t was
commissioned in the year 1949 and it has a strength of about G
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· H
that the Bhopal disaster shook of the lethargy of everyone and
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 1 s.c.R.
A 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 coDIDOdities were equipped with proper and adequate
safety and pollution control devices and whether they posed
any danger to the workmen and the co1D111nity living around
them. The Labour Ministry of the Government of India
B acco~dingly comnissioned 'Technica', a firm of Consultants,
Scientist& 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
c report to the Government of India summarising the initial
impressioiw f<mned 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 rP.ly
D very 1111ch 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
E others. The Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers, in answer
to this question, stated in the floor of the House that the
Governmerit of India was fully conscious of the problem of
hazards from dangerous and toxic processes and assured the
F
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 Comnittee
••
>
consisting of Shri Maruoohan Singh, Chief Mansger, IPCL,
BARODA, as Chairman and 3 other persona as Members to go into
the existence of safety and pollution control measures
covering all aspects such as storage, manufacture and handling
G of chlorine in Shr!ram and to suggest measures necessary for
strengthening safety and pollution control arrangements with a
view to eliminating community risk. The Maruoohan Singh
Comnittee visited the caustic chlorine plant and inspected
various operations including storage tanks, cylinders and
tonners and obtained detailed information from the lilanagement
H and after a thorough and exhaustive inquiry, submitted its
Report to the Government. This Report is a detailed Report
M.C. MEHTA v. U,0,1, [BHA~ATI, C.J,) 319
A
dealing exclusively with the caustic chlorine plant and consi-
derable reliance 111.lst, 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 B
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 c'
practising in the Tis llazari 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 creat-
ed a scare amongst the people residing in that area. Hardly
had. the people got out of the shock of this disaster when, D
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 Adminis-
tration to these two leakages was the making of an Order dated
6th December 1985 by the District Magistrate, Delhi Under
sub-s.(l) of s.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, direct- E
ing 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, phos-
phate, etc. at their establishment in Delhi and within 7 days
_to remove such chemicals and gases from the said place and not F
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 perus- G
ing the order we pointed out the inadequ_acies 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
·-.j carried out by the management and this team of Experts orally
H
reported to us at the hearing on 7th December, 1985 that they
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
had been able to inspect the plant for only a couple of hours
and that cursory inspection showed that msny of the recommen-
dations 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
B the team of Experts had necessarily to be very hurried and
superficial on account of want of sufficient time, we adjourn-
ed the writ petition to 13th December, 1985 with a direction
that the petitioner would be entitled to appoint his own team
of experts who would be allowed access to the cauatic chlorine
plant for the purpose of ascertaining whether the various
c recommendations of the Manmohan Singh Committee had been
carried out or not and whether there were any other drawbaclts
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
D 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 ~f 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
E 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
F Advice Board. This direction was given by us with a view to
ensuring that contemporaneoua 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 v'-ctims of oleum gas leakage.
G 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 \r
H the plant and expressed the opinion that it waa not possible
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. [BHAGWATI, C.J.] 321
A
•. 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 B
hazard or ris.k 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 con-
sisting' of Dr. Nilay Choudhary as Chairman and Dr. Aghoranurty
and Mr. R.K. Garg as Members to inspect the caustic chlorine
plant and submit a report to the Court on the following three c
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 D
adopted against the hazard or possibility of leaks,
expl'osion, 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 E
present and which of them, though necessary, are
not installed in the pl~t.
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, F
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 recommenda-
tions which in its opinion were r~quired to be complied with
by the management in order to minimise the hazards due to
possible chlorine leak. Nilay Choudhary Committee pointed out G
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 Cpmmittee's Report.
H
We have thus two major Reports, one of Maruoohan Singh
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11986] ·1 s.c.R.
A
Comml.thtee and thnde other of iNihlay Choudhary Committee, setting ••
out t e recomme ations wh c 1111st 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
B 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 1111st refer in
this connection and that is the Report made by the Expert
c Comml.ttee appointed by tl\e Lt. Governor of Delhi foliowing
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
D 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
E
elminati 0n 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
1
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 . -
F 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
G 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 coDmJnity and what steps or measures are necessary to
be taken to minimise the risk ,to the people living in the ,..
H vicinity.
M.C. MEHTA v. u.o.I. [BHAGWATI, c.J.] 323
A
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., B
"Whereas it has appeared to me that Cauatic
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 public
at large. Earlier.notices of the Labour Department C
asking your management to ensure proper safety
measures has not been complied with. fully; and •
Whereas inapite of your management '·s assurances
vide letter dated 14,10,1985, on 4.12,85, non
adoption of the adequate safety measures have o
~esulted in collapse of the structure on which
oleum tank was munted resulting in the massive
leakage of oleum cauaing fumes in the environment
affecting the health and safety of a large number
of residents of the Union Territory of Delhi; and
E
Whereaa 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
11111...
r· adopted and imminent danger to human life is eliminated. Soon
thereaft'er, on December 13, 1985, a show-cause notice was
issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Factories) of the
F
Municipal Corporation- of Delhi calling upon Shriram to
-show-cauae 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 G
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 uae of the premises at which the
'<I chlorine cauatic plant is located. The result is that unless H
these two orders - one dated 7th December 1985 and the other
,.
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986 J 1 s.c.R.
A
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
B 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. Or.
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
c 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 reco11111endations
which in his opinion were required to be complied with by
D Shriram and he added that if a substantial improvement in
safety was not possible or rapidly forthcoming along the lines r·
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 tem option which would guarantee the
E complete removal of the colllilllnity risk". The Maruoohan Singh
Committee also observed towards the end of its Report that
"total elimination of risk to the co1D111ity 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 ade-
F quate precautions , " and proceeded to make various reconmenda- . . .
tionB for "strict and immediate compliance with an object to ,
minimise risk to the workers and the population around"•
Seturaman's Committee also pointed out in paragraph 10,8,1. of
its Report that Shriram factory "is certainly a perennial
•ource of hazard to the community. These hazards cannot be
G 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
H that "under so many uncertain factors a chlorine manufacturing ,.....
unit cannot be even reasonably safe when located in proximity
M.C. MEHTA v. u.o.I. [BHAGIATI, C.J.] 325
A
) 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 Marunohan Singh B
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 c
solution if hazard to the collllll1nity 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 cons!- D
-~-
deration 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 1n 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 E
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.
F
Now it is an admitted fact that the caustic chlorine
plant was set up by Shriram more than 35 years ago and what-
ever 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 G
there is therefore hazard or risk to large numbers of people,
if, on account of any accident, whether occasioned by negli-
gence or not, chlorine gas escapes. The various Expert Connnit-
tees appointed by the Government as well as by the Court
-~learly emphasise the danger to the comm.mity living in the
H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] i s.c.R.
A
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
II Shriran in the maintenance and operation of the caustic
chlorine plant and there were also defects and 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
c 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 consequ-
ences inside and outside the plant. He also added that the
standard of housekeeping and training among the operational
D staff ·was not good and it was symptomatic of inadequate aware- ,..
ness of the importance of safety devices and the scale ·of
potential consequences follo11ing "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 responliblities incumbent upon operators of such plants".
E 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
F workers and the population in the vicinity was to be mini-.; ..
mised. 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
G 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 imme-
diately their plants manufacturing Sulphuric Acid, Ole~
H Chloro-sulphonic Acid, Super Phosphate and Granulated Fertili-
ser Ferric Alum and Active Earth. ·Since these plants were
M.C. MEHTA v. U,Q,I, [BHAGWATI, C,J,] 327
A
) under detailed engineering audit and that out of these plants
Double Conversion Double Absorption sulphur~c 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 B
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 c
hypochlorite and container works. Our directions in· the
present judgment 11J.1st 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 D
....., 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 modernised E
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 oll, because they admittedly do
not involve any risk or hazard to the community but these F
plants obviously cannot be restarted by the manageruent 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 consi- G
dered 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.
~ H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
Since there _was considerable controversy between the >.
parties as to whether the recommendations made in the report
of Marunohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Conmittee had
been carried out by the management of S\lriram 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
B
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 Commis-
sioner, Delhi Administration, dated 31st January, 1986 in
regard to compliacne with the recommendations of Manmohan
Singh Conmittee set out in paragraph 3 and the recommendations
c of Nilay Choudhary Committee set out in paragraph 4 of the
affidavit, the Court decided to appoint another Expert
Conmittee for the purpose of ascertaining whether the various
recommendations made in the reports of Manmohan Singh
Comnittee and Nilay Choudhary Conmittee had been complied with
by the management. The Court accordingly made an order on .,...
D
31st January, 1986 appointing a Committee consisting of Shri
Manmohan Singh, Professor P, Khahna, 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 Conmittee had been complied with by the management
E
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 Conmittee and Nilay
Choudhary Conmittee. It seems that Professor P.·Khanna .could
not make his services available with the result that the
F i -
assignment entrusted by us by our order dated 31st January, ·~
1986 had to be carried out by a Conmittee 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
G
made by the Manmohan Singh Conmittee 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 y
Singh Conmittee and Nilay Choudhary Conmittee have been.
H
M.c. MEHTA v. u.o.r. [BHAGWATI, C.J.) 329
A
,i coqilied with by the management of Shdrsm. The hydraulic test
carried out by Messrs. Nike Associates, Bombay, a firm recog-
nised by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bombay as 'compe-
tent person' to take up the responsibilities of testing, exa-
min·ing and issuing certificate in respect of pressure vessels
a.l.so established that all the five tanks had an adequate capa- B
city of withstanding pressure. Since however the authorities
wanted a . hydraulic test to be carried out once again by the
Regional Testing Centre, Olthla, the management of Shrirsm got
--' a fresh .test carried out by the Regional Testing Centre and
the certificate issued by the Regional Testing Centre dated
4th February, 1986 ~bowed that all the five tanks were found
to be strong enough to withstand pressure of 375 dsig. for c
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 Shrirsm. The Committee also witnessed a mock-
drill with a view to ensuring whether there was a specially
-r trained group to handle any chlorine leakage emergency and the 0
Colllllitte.. stated in the report that the mock-drill was found
to be satisfactory. There were also one or two other recommen-
dations in respect of which the Committee observed that
compliance with them could be tested only during the operation .
of the plant.
E
' question is whether in view of the fact that all the
The
recommendations m8de in the Reports of Manm:>han Singh Commit-
tee and Nilay Choudhary Committee have now been complied with
by the management of Shrirsm, the caustic chlorine plant of
Shrirsm should be aliowed to be restarted. The petitioner who
·- -t appeared in person submitted vehemently and passionately that F
~/ the court should not· permit the caustic chlorine plant to be
restarted because there was always an element of hazard or
risk to the c0111111111ity in its operation. He urged that chlorine
ts 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 G
the caustic chlorine plant to be restarted. Mrs. Kumar-
mangalsm, learned counsel appearing on behalf of lokshit
Congress Union as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf
. of Karsmchari Ekta Union, however, expressed themselves
"'-1 emphaticaily against the permanent closure of the caustic
chlorine · plant and submitted that if the caustic chlorine H
plant was not allowed to be restarted, it would not be
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
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 sihce all the recommendations made in the
reports of Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary
Conmittee had been complied with by the management of shriram
B and the possibility of risk or hazard to the community had
been considerably minimised and in their opinion reduced to
almost hil, the caustic chlorine plant should be allowed to be
reopened. The learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing on '"'
behalf of the Union of India and the Delhi Administration
stated before us that his clients were not withdrawing their
C objection to the reopening of the caustie' 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 thinka fit, but in any
D event, strict 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
E 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
F 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 Under-
taking and short supply of down stream products. These rival
1-
--
contentions raise a very difficult and delicate question
before the court as to what course of action to adopt.
G
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 tanka 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 r-
H living in the vicinity. There was some controversy before us
H.C. MEHTA v. U.O.l. [BllA(;WATI, C.J.) 331
A
J 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) aa !mediately dangerous to life
and health, but this was disputed on behalf of the management B
of Shriram relying on the report of l!aru!Dhan 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
_.I exposure for 30 minutes would be dangerous to life. It is not
necessary for us to go into this controversy and decide aa to
which view is correct, whether the one expressed by Aggarwal
Committee or the one expressed by l!aru!Dhan .Singh Committee. c
Fortunately, both Committees are agreed that chlorine is a
I hazardous gas and though smaller concentrations of chlorine in
the air may cause only irritation and coughing, larger concen-
trations , 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 D
\
hazard to the life and health of the coummity, 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 E
·process industries and this enumeration shows that not less
than 25 accidents have been caused by escape of chlorine gaa
in the laat about 70 years and many of these accidents have
resulted in death of quite a few persona. To take only a few
examples, the escape of chlorine from storage tank in Wilsum
_ f Germany in 1952 resulted in death of seven persona and sind- F
..-· larly release of chlorine gas in Bankstown, Australia in 1967
resulted in gassing of five persona and on account of escape
of chlorine gas in Baton Rouge in 1976, about 10,000 persona
had to be evacuated. It is true that quite a few of these
accidents ardse on account of escape of chlorine gaa in
course of transport by rail tanlt cars but some accidents did G
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 gaa. We also cannot
~ overlook the old and worn out state of inachinery and
equipment, the negligence of the management in the maintenance H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986 l i s.c.R.
A
and operation of the caustic chlorine plant and the indif fer- l
ence shown by the management in installing proper safety
devices and safety instruments and taking proper and adequate
measures for enauring safety of the workmen and the people
living in the vicinity. These are considerationa which are
very relevant in deciding whether the caustic chlorine plant
B should be allowed to be restarted. But as againat these conai-
derations, we must also take into account the proven fact that
all the recommendationa made in the Reports of Marum!han Singh
Conmittee and Nilay Choudhary Committee have been carried out ._
by the management of Shriram and it is the opinion of not only
Manmohan singh Conmittee and Nilay Choudhary Committee but
C also of the last Committee appointed by us on 31st January,
1986 that since all these recommendationa 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 Marum>han
Singh Committee, Nilay Choudhary Committee and the last
D Committee appointed by us, that the possibility of hazard or r
risk to the co1D1111nity is conaiderably minimised and there is
now no appreciable risk of danger to the comnunity if the
caustic chlorine plant is allowed to be restarted. We cannot
also ignore the interests or the workmen while deciding this
delicate and complex question. It could not be disputed either
E by t;he 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
F to. find alternative sources of supply and it was co111DOn ground i _
between the parties that such sources may be quite distant .
from Delhi. The production of down stream products would also
be seriouilly affected resulting to some extent in short supply
of these products. These various conaiderationa on both sides
have to be weighed and balanced and a decision has to be made
G at to on which side the considerationa preponderate and till
the balance. It is none too easy task, for the decision either
way may entail serious consequences. We have therefore reflec-
ted over the vatious aspects of this rather difficult and
complex question with great anxiety and care and taking an ,
overall view of the diverse considerationa we have, with V
H conaiderable hesitation, bordering almost on trepidation
reached the conclusion that, pending conaideration. of the
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. [BHAGWATI, C.J.] 333
A
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 rest~rted by the
management of Shriram, subject to certain stringent conditions
which we propose to specify.
B
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
(hereinafter referred to as the Central Board). The Central
Board is constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control c
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 D
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 E
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. Pursual\t to the Consent Order Shriram
installed effluent treatment plants in the vanaspati, stable
bleaching powder, super phosphate and active earth units with F
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 G
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
,jBoard. The results of analysis of the samples collected by the
'officers of the Central Board at the terminal outlet were H
annexed as Annexure I to the supplementary affidavit dated
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 S,C,R,
A
19th December, 1985 filed by Shri P.R. Gharekhan on behalf of
1
the Central Board. The Central Board also repeatedly complain-
ed 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 Environmerrt:al Engineer in the employ of Shriram, there
B are broadly two technologies available for effluent treatment
in yanaspati industry. One is the technology of removing
suspended s0lids by settling with the help of clarifloccula-
tion 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
c technology based on settling with the help of clarifloccula-
tion was reconnnended 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
D 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
E 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
Messrs Kroft Engineering Company should be asked to set up a
pilot plant based on dissolved air flotation technology .in the
F vanaspati plant for treatability study of the effluent. But
despite the follow-up action taken by Shriram, the pilot plant 1 - -.,,.
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
G 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 y
H
M.c. MEHTA v. u.0.1. [BHAGWATI, C,J,] 335
A
--~ at the terminal outlet a plant based on dissolved air flota-
tion technology of Messrs Kc.ofta 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 install-
ed. However, the performance of this terminal treatment plant B
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 c
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 possi~
ble to secure compliance with the requirement of the limiting D
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 E
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 affi- F
_,.' davit 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 provi-
sions of the Water Act on condition that Shriram would comply
with all the recommendations of various Collllllittees appointed
by this Court or otherwise and that such consent would be G
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
~j Consent Order to Shriram valid for a period of one month from
the date of its issue and the Central Board will take samples H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 1 s.c.R.
A
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 relevant
standards, the Central Board will immediately bring such fact
to the notice of this Court and it will be open to the Central
B Board to take such action as it thinks fit including non-
renewal 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
c Air Act notifying certain areas in the Union Territory of
Delhi as air pollution controf 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
D
accordingly made by Shriram on the basis of which a Consent r
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
E 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
F 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
G Board that the conditions in the Consent Order relating to
sulphuric acid and super phosphate plants are not being
observed. We msy 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
H
more than 150 mg/Nm3, it will be open to the Central Board to
take whatever action is appropriate under the law.
M.C. MEHTA V• u.o.I. [BHAGIATI, C.J.] 337
A
Before we part with this topic of water and air pollu-
.; tion 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 B
been able to discharge its domestic effluent in the 1111nicipal
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 ~o that it
can be used for carrying domestic effluent discharged by the C
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 pemt Shriram to restart .D
'"" its power plant as also plants for msnufacture 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
technical hard oil and container works. But there are two E
• 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 i•i
eliminated and the other is the order dated 24th December, F
-- ~ 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 pemss ion which we are G
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
~nabling Shriram to restart these plants. But we are laying
aown certain conditions which shall be strictly and H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
scrupulously followed by Shri.ram and if at any time it is
found that any one or more of these conditions are violated, 1·
the permission granted by us will .be liable to be withdrawn.
We fot'IIl.llate these conditions as follows:-
(1) Since it i• clear from the affidavits and the
B 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
c and instruments with a view to ensuring the maxilllllll
safety of the workers and the CO!Dllllllity living in
the vicinity and it is only after w.P. No. 12739 of
1985 was filed and all the glaring devic:lenc:les
were pointed out that the management carried out
various alterations and adopted various measures in
D accordance with the reco11111endations made by
Me.nmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary r
Committee, it is necessary that an expert Committee
should be appointed by us which will monitor the
operation and maintenance of the pl!lllt and
equipment and ensure the continued implementation
E of the recommendations of these two commititeee. We
accordingly constituted an Expert Committee
consisting of Shri Manmohan Singh, Shri P.R.
Gllarekhan and Professor P. I<hanna of the Indian
Institute of Technology, Bombay - and if Professor
P, I<hanna is not available for any reaeon, Dr,
F 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 reco11111endat ions made by Manmohan Singh
G 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
H situations arising on account of possibl~
accidental release of chlorine gas, keeping in mind
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. [BHAGWATI, C.J.] 339
A
matereological factors, location of the plant and
the largeness of the population exposed to hszard
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 B
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 examina-
tion 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 examina- c
tion 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 recommenda-
tions made by Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay
Choudhary Committee or the safety devices or D
instruments are not adequate or are not in opera-
tion or are not properly functioning, the peti-
~··
tioner will be at liberty to immediately bring such
default to the notice of this Court so that in that
~vent, the permission granted to the management to
restart the caustic chlorine plant may be revoked. E
Shriram will, within 3 days from today, deposit a
sum of Rs.30,000 in this Court to meet the travell-
ing, boarding and lodging expenses of the members
of the Expert Committee.
(2) One operator should be designated as personally F
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 G
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 person-
.....
-~:
ally responsible. Their duty shall be not merely
H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
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.
B
(3) The Chief Inspector of Factories_ or any Senior
Inspector duly nominated by him, who has necessary
expertise in inspection of chemical factories, will f
inspect the caustic chlorine plant at least once in --
a week by paying surprise visit wihout any previous
intimation and examine whether the recommendations
c of Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Chou:lhary
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
D
defects or def iciancies in the operati0n and
maintenance of the caustic chlorine plant and in ;>--
the safety devices or instruments installedin the _..
plant. The Chief Inspector of Factories or the
seriior Inspector nominated by him, who carries out
such inspection, shall immediately report to this
E
Court and to the Labour Commissioner any default,
deficiency or remissness on the part of the manage-
ment 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.
F
( 4) The Central Board will also depute a senior j
Inspector to visit the caustic chlorine plant and
the VanaJpati Plant atleast once in a week without
any prior notice to the management, for the purpose
G
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,....t-
H
M.C. MEHTA v. u.o.r. [BHAGWATI, C.J.] 34r
A
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, incl- B
uding revocation of the relevant Consent Order.
(5) The management of Shriram will obtain an under-
taking 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 C
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 D
within 1 week from today.
( 6) There shall be a Connnittee of three
representatives of Lokahit Congress Union and three
representatives of Karamchari Ekta Union to look
after th safety arrangements in the caustic E
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 mal-
- . functioning 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 releva..,t information from
the management. If there is any default or negli-
F
gence in the observance of the safety measures and
the maintenance and oper_ation of the safety devices
and instruements, this Committee will be entitled
to bring such default or negligence to the notice G
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 given proper and adequate train-
ing in regard to the functioning of the caustic H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 S.C.R.
A
chlorine plant and the operation of the safety r
devices and instruments and this will be done
within a period of 2 weeks after the nomination of
three representatl.ves on the Committee is co1mm.ini-
cated by each of the two unions to the management.
B (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 workttl!n and the
people as to what immediate treatment should be
c taken in case they are affected by leakage of
chlorine gas.
(8) Every worker in the caustic chlortne plant
should be properly trained and instructed in regard
to the functioning of the ·specific plant and
D equipment in whl.ch 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 100st effective way of
·giving such training and instruction would be
E 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
F any chlorine leakage emergency and refresher
4
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
G 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 of r·
H safety belts as the case may be while working in
M.C. MEHTA v. u.0.1. [BHAGWATI, c.J. I 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 B
Court a sum of Ba. 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 c
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 Bs.15 iacs which bank
guarantee shall be encashed by the Registrar,
wholly or in part, in case there is any escape of
chlorine gas within a ;..1riod 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 E
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 Bs.20 lacs shall be
deposited .and the bank guarantee for Bs.15 lacs F
-' 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.
G
We have for!Dllated these conditions with a view to
ensuring continuous compliance with the recommendations of
Manmohan Singh Colilmittee and Nilay Choudhary Comnittee and
strict observance of safety standards and procedures, so that
the possibility of hazard or risk to the workmen and the
com!Dlnity is almost reduced to nii. We would like to point out H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
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 colIIIllllnity.
B 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
c 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
D 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
E of-life, there is a certain element of hazard or risk inherent
in the very use of science and technology and it is not possi-
ble 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
F 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 colllllllnity by taking all necessary steps for locat-
ing such industries in a manner which would pose least risk of
G danger to the coimm.lnity 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
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 ar~ located in such
H areas, every care must be taken to see that large human habi-
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. [BHAGWATI, C.J.] 345
A
tation does not grow around then. There should preferably be a
green belt of l to 5 k.m. width around such hazardous indust-
ries.
There is also one other matter to which we should like to
draw the attention of the Government of India. We have noticed B
that in the past few years there is an increasing trend in the
number of cases based on enviorrunental pollution and ecologi-
cal destrucUon 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 c
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 D
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 E
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
absolutely essential that there should be an independent
is therefore F
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 G
different branches of science and technology, who would act as
an information bank for the. Court and the Government Depart-
mants and generate new information according to the particular
requirements of the Court or the concerned Government depart-
ment. We would also suggest to the Government nf India that
since cases involving issues of enviornmental pollution, H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 1 s.c.R.
A
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
B 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
c chlorine plant and other plants manufacturing by-products and
if so, subject to what conditions. There are many other issues
of seminal importance arising out of the claims for compen-
sation by victims of olium gas which have to be considered by
the Court. We have forrulated these issues and asked the
petitioner and those supporting him in W.P. 12739 of 1985 to
D file their written submissions on or before 24th February,
1986 and Shriram to file their written submissions on or
befo~e 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
E 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
F litigation. He has argued his case with great sincerety and i -
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
G 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 manag~ment 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
H is admittedly lb:)re dangerous than olium gas. Though lone and
M.c. MEHTA v. u.o.r. [BHA~ATI .• c.J. J 347
single, he has fought a valiant battle against a giant enter- A
~ prise 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.
B
;J S.R.
~.·
••
• t
I
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "public interest litigation"Sign in to search