Skip to main content

Followers

1. M.C. Mehta (Petitioner) Vs Union of India (Resondent)

Ref: AIR 1996 SC 750

Sub:- This case is based on the pollution of the environment which is caused due to hazardous industries.

Facts of the Case :-

1. M.C. Mehta is an environmentalist who has filed a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court on the ground that environ- mental pollution is increasing rapidly in Delhi due to industries.


2. A master plan was implemented in Delhi in 1962 under the Delhi development Act, 1957 which was aimed at re. reducing the pollution level in Delhi.


3. In Delhi there are so many such industries which comes under the category of the Hazardous industries and which are polluting environment there.


4. The upshift discharged from these industries is also caus- ing soil pollution in one way or other.


5. The upshift material discharged from such industries is ei- ther thrown over the land or buried under the land which causes much pollution.


6. In a developed City like Delhi, it is not proper to live in the city from the environmental point of view keeping in mind the hazardous industries. Therefore, these industries are required to be shifted elsewhere.


7. Hazardous process means such an activity where special precaution is taken and discharge produced from it affects the health of people and such industries are specified in the first schedule.


8. Efforts have been made at the international level with re- gard to environmental pollution


9. Delhi, which is a developing State and in its development, environmental protection remedies are also to be required to be taken into alongwith its special features and special requirements and for this purpose it is very necessary to shift the industries outside Delhi.


10. The master plan which was applied for Delhi in 1962, could not be executed in an effective way,as a result of which a hazardous condition has emerged from these industries situated in the city of Delhi.


11. Therefore, now it is required that a proper arrangement should be made to shift all the industries from Delhi. In this connection, notices should be issued to the owners of these industries and their objections be invited with regard to their shifting so that their objections be decided in such a way that no workman gets unemployed.


Judgment: 

The Supreme Court disposed of the petition with directions to the Government.


Law points :-

1. The hazardous industries means such industries which are specified in the first schedule.


2. Such hazardous industries pollute the environment which causes danger to the health of human beings.


3. It is necessary to shift such industries outside the city of Delhi.


4. While shifting, the employment of the workmen should be kept in mind.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Important Topics for Semester Exam in Environmental Law useful for LL.B Students.

  1.           State facts and the principles of law laid down in the case of Monera Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Society vs M.P. Board of Prevention of Water Pollution, 1993 M.P.L.J.270.   2.            Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3.            Discuss the various provisions Indian Constitution concerning Environmental Protection. What are the main features of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the provisions of penalties and procedure for violation of provisions, rules, orders and instructions. 4.            Describe the special provisions in the case of supersession of the Central Board or the State Board constituted under the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974. Explain in brief about the provisions regarding appeal and revision under this Act. 5.            Explain the objects and main provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollut
Post a Comment
Read more

1. A. Mackenzie vs. J S Izzak, AIR 1970 SC 1906

Ref : AIR 1970 SC 1906 Sub :- This case is based on Section 2 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Facts of the case :- 1. S.S. Dwarka is a ship whose owner is The British India Stream Navigation Limited and Mackenzie was its agent. 2. Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan was a class II seaman on this ship and who was missing from the ship. 3. It was clear from the medical log book that he had a chest pain on 13 December 1961 and he was suffering from it. 4. It was known from the medical checkup that nothing was unusual and medical officer gave him medicines and con- firmed his recovery and joining back on his duty next day. 5. It was known from the log book of the office on 16 Decem- ber 1961 that he was on the ship that day and he was seen on the bridge at 2:50 in the morning. 6. He was found missing at 6:15 in the morning. The master of the ship informed on the radio message at 7:30 in the morning that a seaman is missing between Khoramsar and Asahar and he is likely to be missing in the river.
Post a Comment
Read more