MODERN TERRY TOWEL LTD.versusSOLANKI MULJIBHAI REVABHAI HARIJAN VYAS AND ORS.

A                      MODERN TERRY TOWEL LTD.
                                        v.
      SOLANKI MULJIBHAI REVABHAI HAR!JAN VY AS AND ORS.

                                  MAY 5, 2004
B
              [RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR , J.]

         Environment Law :                                                        f

         Environment pollution-Factory discharging trade ejjluent outside
C factory premises-Writ Petition-Order of closure of factory--Court
  directing unit to deposit certain amount as a condition for restarting a unit
  not generating any ejjluent--Subsequently in terms of agreement,
  affected persons compensated, ejjluent treatment plant set up and pollution
  control norms satisfied-Disposal of writ petition without any order
D regarding refund of amount deposited-Application for refund of amount
  deposited-Disposed of directing that it could be revived after cases
  pending before Supreme Court are disposed of-On appeal, held: Affected
  persons having been satisfied with the compensation paid, High Court
  should have refunded the amount treating the case separately-Hence,
E order of High Court set aside and matter remitted back for fresh
  consideration.

       Appellant-industrial unit was discharging trade effluents outside
  the factory premises. A resident within the vicinity of the unit filed a
                                                                                  ..
F writ petition. High Court ordered closure of the unit and also directed
  the appellant to deposit certain amount as a condition for restarting
  a unit not generating trade effluents. Thereafter, in terms of the
  agreement entered between the parties the affected persons were paid
  damages, effluent treatment plant was set up and pollution control
  norms were satisfied. This agreement was filed before the court on the
G basis of which High Court disposed of the writ petition allowing the
  same to be withdrawn. However, it did not make any order regarding
  the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant before the Court.
  Appellant filed an application for refund of the amount deposited. High
  Court disposed of the application directing that it could be revived
H after the cases pending before the Supreme Court are disposed of.
                                        102
       MODERN TERRY TOWEL LTD. v. S.M.R.H. VYAS [RAJENDRA BABU, CJ.] 103

    Hence the appeal.                                                          A
         Appellant-industrial unit contended that the writ petition having
    been withdrawn, the concerned persons who had suffered damage
    having been compensated, the question of continuing to keep the said
    amounts deposited in Court would not arise, and that this case stands B
    entirely on different footing from other cases pending before this


-   Court.

         Allowing the appeal, the Court

         HELD : Degradation of environment or damage, if any, suffered C
    by the residents residing in the vicinity having been satisfied with the
    compensation paid to them in terms of the agreement which was
    produced before the High Court, the Effiuent Treatment Plant having
    been set up and with pollution control norms having been satisfied, the
    High Court ought to have considered the question of refund of the D
    amounts deposited with the Court and should have treated this case
    on a different footing altogether and not connected with other cases
    pending before this Court. Hence, order of High Court is set aside and
    matter is remitted back to it for fresh consideration. [I 05-B-D)

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2991 of E
    2004.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.200lofthe Gujarat High
    Court in c:Appln. No. 4361/2001 in C.Appln. No. 1074 of 1998.

         R.F. Nariman, Ms. Manik Karanjawala for the Appellant.
                                                                               F

         Ms. Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent Nos. 2-3.

         E.C. Agrawala for the Respondent No. l.
                                                                               G
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. : Leave granted.

          A writ petition was filed in the High Court by a resident within the
    vicinity of a unit of the appellant on the allegation that the appellant was H
    104                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A letting out its trade effiuents outside factory premises. On 16.12.1996 the
  High Court appointed a Committee to make a report regarding discharge
  of effiuent. On the filing of Report by that Committee a show cause notice
  was issued to the appellant on 26.12.1996 in the light of the contents
  thereof. Thereafter, the High Court on 9.1.1997 directed the closure of the
B factory. In the course of the order made by the High Court it was noticed
  that the appellant could not say that there was no discharge of trade
  effiuent. The High Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.
  75,000 and also ordered its dosure. On 16.1.1997 by another order made
  the High Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs as
                                                                                       -
C a condition for restarting of the unit. On depositing such amounts in
  instalments the High Court directed restarting of certain activities which
  do not generate any kind of effiuent. Then by an order made on 27 .1.1998
  the High Court disposed of the matter. In the course of the order made on
  that day it was noticed that an agreement had been entered into between
  the petitioner and certain other persons residing in the village with the
D appellant; that effluent treatment plant (ETP) was about to be commissioned
  and this would include training of the people of the industry for the
  operation and of the maintenance of the ETP; that the report filed by the
  Gujarat Pollution Control Board on examining the samples collected on
  20.01.1999 indicated that the appellant is meeting the norms; that the
E petitioners and others in the writ petition filed before the High Court had
  been paid damages arising on account of discharge of effluents and had
  entered into an agreement which was filed before the High Court; and that
  the unit having met with the requirements of the Gujarat Pollution Control
  Board. On that basis, the High Court disposed of the writ petition aliowing
F the same to be withdrawn. However, as regards the refund of the amount
  deposited by the appellant before the Court, the High Court stated that this
  aspect could be considered at a later stage.

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

            In this appeal, it is urged before us that the writ petition having been
    withdrawn and the concerned persons who had suffered damage on account
H   of discharge of effluents having been compensated, question of continuing
    MODERN TERRY TOWEL LTD. v. S.M.R.H. VYAS [RAJENDRA BABU, CJ.] 105

to keep the said amounts deposited in Court would not arise. It is further A
submitted that this case stands entirely on different footing from other cases
pending before this Court because in other cases discharge of effluent was
to a common ETP while no such discharge had been made in this case,
except some of the effluents having been discharged into lands surrounding
the factory.                                                                B
        Degradation of environment or damage, if any, suffered by the
residents residing in the vicinity having been satisfied with the compensation
paid to them in terms of the agreement which was produced before the High
Court, the ETP having been set up and with pollution control norms having
been satisfied, the High Court ought to have considered question of refund C
of the amounts deposited with Court and should have treated this case on
a different footing altogether and not connected with other cases pending
before this Court.

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

       The appeal is allowed accordingly.

N.J.                                                     Appeal allowed.