Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by M/s. Nitol Jinn Trust and Mr. Peter Dias against the Union of India, State of Goa, Goa State Pollution Control Board, Inspector of Explosives, Inspector of Factories & Boilers, Village Panchayat of Sancoale, and Zuari-Indian Oil Tanking Ltd. The petitioners sought a writ to stop the oil tanking activity of Respondent No. 7 at its oil terminal located in property bearing Survey No. 111/1, alleging that the activity was illegal and posed a serious threat to the environment and public safety. They also sought a direction to constitute a Crisis Committee under the Environment Act. The court examined the factual matrix, noting that the petitioners had not produced any credible evidence to show that the respondent had violated any statutory conditions or environmental norms. The respondent had obtained all necessary consents and clearances from the relevant authorities, including consent to operate from the Goa State Pollution Control Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The court observed that the petitioners' allegations were based on mere apprehension and not on concrete proof of violation. Applying the precautionary principle, the court noted that while the burden of proof is on the developer to show that the activity is environmentally benign, in this case, the respondent had discharged that burden by obtaining the requisite approvals. The petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of compliance. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no merit in the petitioners' claim and that the activity could not be ordered to be closed without evidence of violation.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Public Interest Litigation - Closure of Industrial Activity - The petitioners sought closure of oil tanking activity alleging violation of environmental norms and threat to public safety. The court held that in the absence of credible evidence of violation of statutory conditions or environmental laws, the court cannot order closure of a lawful activity. The petitioners failed to produce any material to show that the respondent had violated the conditions of consent or environmental clearance. (Paras 2-10) B) Environmental Law - Precautionary Principle - Burden of Proof - The court observed that the precautionary principle requires that the burden of proof is on the actor or developer to show that his action is environmentally benign. However, in this case, the respondent had obtained all necessary consents and clearances, and the petitioners did not produce any evidence to rebut the presumption of compliance. Mere apprehension of harm is not sufficient to invoke the precautionary principle. (Paras 11-15) C) Environmental Law - Consent to Operate - Validity - The respondent had obtained consent to operate from the Goa State Pollution Control Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The court found that the consent was valid and subsisting, and there was no material to show that the respondent had violated any condition. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the oil tanking activity carried out by Respondent No. 7 at the oil terminal in property bearing Survey No. 111/1 is illegal and poses a threat to the environment and public safety, warranting its closure.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Environmental law
- Public Interest Litigation
- Precautionary principle
- Burden of proof
- Environmental Impact Assessment
- Consent to operate
- Hazardous waste management
