Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ghansham Ganpat Dupare, Murari Mukunda Raut, and Shankarrao Govind Johri, are agriculturists holding lands in Old Wadsa, Taluka Wadsa, District Gadchiroli. They filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) seeking directions against respondent no.7, Jejani Pulp and Paper Mills, for alleged pollution caused by effluent seepage from the mill into their agricultural lands, rendering them infertile. They also sought suspension of the mill's registration and a direction to respondent no.8, NEERI, to submit a report. The respondents included the State of Maharashtra, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Collector, Tahsildar, Union of India, and NEERI. The respondent mill disputed the location of the petitioners' lands, claiming that the mill's surrounding land is owned by it and separated by a canal, with no chance of pollutant seepage. The mill also claimed to have taken steps to curtail effluents. The petitioners' counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in Bhavani River v. Sakthi Sugars Ltd (1998) 2 SCC 601, where closure of an industry was directed due to pollution. However, the court distinguished that case as it involved a report by the Pollution Control Board confirming seepage from unlined lagoons polluting a river, whereas no such report existed in the present case. The court found that the matter involved disputed questions of fact regarding the location of lands and the existence of seepage, which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The court held that it was not inclined to go into the matter under Article 226 and directed the petitioners to approach the civil court for appropriate relief. The court also noted that if the petitioners' fields were being wasted, they could seek temporary injunction before the civil court. The writ petition was dismissed, with the court observing that the petitioners were at liberty to pursue civil remedies.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Fact - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition seeking closure of a pulp and paper mill for alleged pollution, as there were disputed questions of fact regarding the location of the petitioners' lands and whether effluents were seeping into them. The court held that such matters are more appropriately decided by a civil court, where evidence can be adduced. (Paras 2-8) B) Environmental Law - Pollution Control - Effluent Seepage - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - The petitioners alleged that effluent from the respondent's mill seeped into their agricultural lands, rendering them infertile. The respondent disputed the proximity of the lands and claimed no seepage. The court noted the absence of a report similar to that in Bhavani River case and declined to order closure. (Paras 3-6) C) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Remedy Available - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - The court observed that if the petitioners' fields were being wasted, they could move an application for temporary injunction before the civil court, which would be decided on its merits. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, direct closure of a pulp and paper mill on allegations of pollution causing infertility of agricultural lands, when there is a factual dispute regarding the location of lands and seepage of effluents.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate relief, including seeking temporary injunction.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not suitable for disputed questions of fact
- Civil court remedy available
- Temporary injunction can be sought
