Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between a chemical manufacturing company and a municipality regarding the discharge of industrial effluent. The municipality alleged that the company's chemical works discharged effluent containing calcium, sodium and other salts through katcha channels, thereby corrupting potable water in surrounding wells and adversely affecting soil fertility. Acting under Section 153A(1) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 as adapted and applied to the State of Saurashtra, the municipality, after obtaining government approval, issued a notice dated 14 June 1956 requiring the company to show cause why it should not be directed to arrange for discharge of effluent through a covered pucca drainage and pump it over a distance of about eight miles. The company replied on 10 July 1956, denying pollution and soil damage, stating that tests showed water was not polluted, and contending that the suggested scheme was impracticable and involved huge expenditure. The company objected to the requisitions. The government then appointed a Special Officer under Section 153A(3) by order dated 17 May 1958 to hold an enquiry. The Special Officer framed several issues and treated Issues 1 to 4 as preliminary issues of law. Issue No.4 asked whether the question of pollution and soil fertility was a matter of subjective satisfaction of the municipality and beyond the scope of the enquiry. The Special Officer decided Issue No.4 in the affirmative, holding that the existence of nuisance was for the subjective satisfaction of the municipality and binding on him. He also held Issue No.5 (mala fide notice) was out of purview and that Issue No.6 did not arise. He directed the case to proceed on Issue No.7, which concerned what recommendation to make if pollution was found. The company appealed by special leave and also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of Section 153A. The appellant argued that the Special Officer had unduly restricted the scope of the enquiry and refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by the Act, and that Section 153A offended Article 19. The respondent municipality contended that the Special Officer was correct in holding that the existence of nuisance was a matter of subjective satisfaction and beyond his enquiry, and that Section 153A was a reasonable restriction on fundamental rights to prevent nuisance affecting public health and soil fertility. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of Section 153A. It held that while the subjective satisfaction of the municipality could not be questioned at the initial stage under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) where the existence of nuisance was admitted, the situation under sub-section (3) was entirely different when the notice and requisition were wholly disputed. The language of sub-section (3), particularly the words 'to hold an enquiry into the matter', clearly indicated that the Special Officer had a duty to enquire into the existence of the alleged nuisance and come to his own finding. The status and powers of the Special Officer indicated that sub-section (3) was intended by the legislature as a protection against arbitrary exercise of power by the municipality. The Court concluded that the Special Officer took a wrong view of his jurisdiction and erred in restricting the scope of the enquiry. The appeal was allowed and the Special Officer was directed to proceed with the enquiry into whether the effluent polluted water and affected soil fertility.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Regulation of Discharge of Effluent - Scope of Enquiry by Special Officer - Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 (as adapted and applied to the State of Saurashtra and as amended by Act XI of 1955), Section 153A(3) - The Municipality issued notice under Section 153A(1) requiring the appellant chemical works to show cause against directing discharge of effluent through covered pucca drainage and pumping it eight miles; the appellant wholly disputed the notice and requisition, contending no pollution or soil damage. The Special Officer held that the question whether effluent polluted water and soil was one for subjective satisfaction of the Municipality and beyond his enquiry. The Supreme Court held that under Section 153A(3) the words 'to hold an enquiry into the matter' required the Special Officer to independently enquire into the existence of the alleged nuisance when the notice and requisition were wholly disputed, and the Special Officer erred in restricting the scope of his enquiry. Held that the Special Officer must consider Issue No.6 and determine whether the effluent corrupts water and affects soil fertility. (Paras 1-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Officer appointed under Section 153A(3) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, was right in restricting the scope of his enquiry by treating the existence of nuisance as a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Municipality; and whether Section 153A violates Article 19 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Special Officer took a wrong view of his jurisdiction under Section 153A(3) of the Act and erred in restricting the scope of the enquiry. The Court ruled that when the notice and requisition were wholly disputed, the Special Officer had a duty to enquire into the existence of the alleged nuisance and come to his own finding. The appeal was allowed, and the Special Officer was directed to proceed with the enquiry into whether the effluent polluted water and affected soil fertility.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Under Section 153A(3) of Bombay District Municipal Act
- 1901
- when notice and requisition are wholly disputed
- Special Officer must hold an enquiry into the matter and independently determine existence of nuisance
- subjective satisfaction of Municipality is not binding at that stage
- sub-section intended as protection against arbitrary exercise of power by Municipality
- enquiry should be expeditious
