Supreme Court Allows Builders to Proceed with Construction Plans Subject to Re-examination and Expert Review on Chemical Factory Relocation. Blanket Ban Within One Kilometre of Chemical Units Lapses as Court Directs Constitution of Authority Under Section 3(3) of Environment Protection Act, 1986 to Balance Industrial Safety and Article 21 Right to Life.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

This appeal arose from a dispute between builders and chemical manufacturers, including Bayer India Ltd, concerning construction activity near chemical factories in Thane. In the aftermath of the Bhopal disaster, chemical manufacturers approached the Bombay High Court in pending writ petitions filed by builders. In Writ Petition No.4497/90, the High Court required the Municipal Corporation to re-examine building plans considering section 46 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The manufacturers brought the matter to the Supreme Court, which permitted them to file review petitions before the High Court. The High Court dismissed their intervention application and directed the Municipal Corporation to permit construction, but on a further interlocutory application, the Supreme Court on 24.2.1993 directed the High Court to dispose of the review application and maintain status quo, thereby preventing construction within one kilometre of the factory premises. On 26.9.1994, the High Court disposed of the review application by imposing restrictions: no additions or modifications for completed or under-construction buildings; prohibition on further construction within one kilometre radius where no actual construction had commenced; continuation of stay for further permissions; and vacation of stay only where construction had commenced. The builders appealed against these directions. The Supreme Court heard the appeals on several occasions and formed a prima facie view that giving immunity to industrialists through such blanket prohibition caused injustice to residents, as it adversely affected the right to reside while leaving existing inhabitants exposed to risk. The Court considered whether industrialists should shift their factories or whether relocation should be examined. Respondents argued that relocation was not possible logistically, financially or otherwise. The Court recognized that it lacked expertise to decide relocation and that the matter required an expert authority under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The Court directed the Central Government to constitute an Authority under section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 within one month, with all necessary powers, to examine and decide all relevant issues including relocation, and to submit a report to the Central Government within three months after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to concerned parties. The Court further directed the Bombay Municipal Corporation to proceed with the plans submitted by the appellants and to re-examine the grant of sanction on the basis of existing rules and bye-laws, but to await the result of the Authority's report. The review petitions filed by respondents before the High Court were allowed to be withdrawn and stood dismissed, and the impugned directions of the High Court automatically lapsed. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to Life and Environment - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Chemical industries pose inherent risk to life of nearby residents, and any probable accident may cause annihilation of large number of inhabitants - Court observed that Bhopal disaster showed tragedy that chemical industries can cause, and no risk can be taken; therefore protective measures and deeper examination of relocation were necessary - Held that lives of inhabitants around factories were in great jeopardy, and relocation needed deeper probe by an expert authority (Paras 1,5).

B) Environmental Law - Relocation of Hazardous Industries - Section 3(3) of Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Central Government to constitute an Authority under Section 3(3) within one month, with all necessary powers under the Act, to examine and decide all relevant issues including relocation of chemical factories; Authority to submit report to Central Government within three months after hearing concerned parties - Held that because relocation involved logistical, financial and other factors requiring deeper probe, an expert authority was appropriate and necessary (Paras 4,6).

C) Municipal Law - Building Plan Approval - Section 46 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act - Bombay Municipal Corporation directed to proceed with plans submitted by appellants and to re-examine grant of sanction on basis of existing rules and bye-laws, but to await report of Authority before final decision - Held that review petitions filed by respondents stood dismissed on withdrawal, and impugned directions of High Court automatically lapsed (Paras 2,7,8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether blanket prohibition on construction within one kilometre radius of chemical factories was justified in light of the right to reside under Article 21 and whether relocation of such hazardous industries required expert examination under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to constitute an Authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 within one month from receipt of the order, with all necessary powers under the Act. The Authority was to submit its report to the Central Government within three months after examining and deciding all relevant issues, including those mentioned by the Court, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to concerned parties. Follow-up actions were to be taken as per recommendations. The Bombay Municipal Corporation was directed to proceed with the plans submitted by appellants and re-examine grant of sanction on the basis of existing rules and bye-laws, but to await the report of the Authority. Review petitions filed by respondents before the High Court stood dismissed on withdrawal, and the impugned directions of the High Court automatically lapsed. Appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution
  • Environmental protection
  • Sustainable development
  • Relocation of hazardous industries
  • Authority under Section 3(3) of Environment Protection Act
  • 1986
  • Re-examination of building plans
  • Buffer zone around chemical factories
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1996 LawText (SC) (09) 148

1996-09-09

Kuldip Singh, B.L. Hansaria

F.B. Taraporawala and Others Etc. Etc.

Bayer India Ltd. and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ appeals before the Supreme Court challenging directions of the Bombay High Court that imposed restrictions on construction within one kilometre radius of chemical factories.

Remedy Sought

Appellants (builders) sought to remove the prohibition and proceed with construction; respondents (chemical manufacturers including Bayer India Ltd) sought to safeguard against risk from chemical factories and opposed construction nearby; ultimately the Court sought a balanced solution through an expert authority.

Filing Reason

Dispute arose after Bhopal disaster when chemical manufacturers sought protection against potential liability and risks, leading the High Court to impose construction restrictions near chemical units, which the builders challenged.

Previous Decisions

Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.4497/90 directed Municipal Corporation to re-examine building plans considering Section 46 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act; Supreme Court on 24.2.1993 directed status quo and disposal of review application; High Court on 26.9.1994 passed directions restricting construction within one kilometre radius; these directions were under challenge.

Issues

Whether blanket prohibition on construction within one kilometre radius of chemical factories was justified in light of the right to reside under Article 21 of the Constitution. Whether relocation of hazardous chemical industries was feasible or whether an expert authority under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 should examine the issue. Whether building plans submitted by builders should be re-examined on the basis of existing rules and bye-laws.

Submissions/Arguments

Respondents (Bayer India Ltd as representative) argued that relocation was not possible logistically, financially or otherwise. Shri Jaitley appearing for respondents submitted that accident may not take place, though it could not be ruled out altogether. Appellants contended that prohibition on construction within one kilometre radius adversely affected the right to reside in the locality and caused injustice to residents, as noted by the Court prima facie.

Ratio Decidendi

The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution requires protective measures against risks from hazardous chemical industries, and no risk can be taken in view of potential large-scale loss of life. Relocation of such industries involves complex logistical, financial and other factors that require examination by an expert authority constituted under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Sustainable development demands balance between development and environmental safety. Blanket prohibition on construction without expert study is not appropriate; instead, building plans should be re-examined under existing rules and the Authority's report awaited.

Judgment Excerpts

Industrial growth, yes; but by exposing a large segment of society to the risk of losing lives, no. The concept of 'sustainable development', whose salient points have been noted in the aforesaid Judgment, does call upon one and all to see to the maintenance of balance between development and its sustenance in future. We, therefore, direct the constitution of an Authority under section 3(3) of the Act by the Central Government, who shall confer all the necessary powers under the Act on the Authority, which shall be constituted within one month from the receipt of this order.

Procedural History

Builders filed writ petition before Bombay High Court (Writ Petition No.4497/90) seeking orders regarding building plans; High Court required Municipal Corporation to re-examine plans considering Section 46 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. Respondents Bayer India Ltd etc. brought matter to Supreme Court contending sanctioned plan area reserved for industrial user; Supreme Court permitted respondents to file review petition before High Court. High Court dismissed intervention application and directed Municipal Corporation to permit construction. Respondents approached Supreme Court again by filing Interlocutory Application in disposed of SLP; Supreme Court by order dated 24.2.1993 directed High Court to dispose of review application and maintain status quo, preventing construction within one kilometre radius from factory premises. High Court disposed of review application on 26.9.1994 with directions restricting construction. Appellants filed appeals before Supreme Court questioning these directions. Supreme Court heard appeals on multiple occasions, directed constitution of expert authority and disposed of appeals on 09.09.1996.

Acts & Sections

  • Environment Protection Act, 1986: Section 3(3)
  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act: Section 46
  • Constitution of India: Article 21
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Government Appeal Against Declaration of Lapsed Land Acquisition Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Possession Taken Prior to Act...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Directs Eviction of Encroachers from Temple Property Under HR&CE Act — Writ Petition Disposed with Directions to Initiate Proceedings Under Section 78 Within Twelve Weeks. The court held that HR&CE authorities must protect temple ...