Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Goa took suo motu cognizance of a public interest litigation following a newspaper report dated 16.04.2017 in 'Herald' highlighting severe pollution in the vicinity of Sonshi mine. The court issued notice to the State of Goa, the Director of Transport, Member Secretary of Goa State Pollution Control Board, Police Inspector Valpoi, Superintendent of Police Traffic North Goa, and Director of Health Services. In the initial order dated 17.04.2017, directions were issued to the respondents to take immediate measures in view of the disturbance to the environment and the safety of the people living near the mine. Subsequently, by order dated 27.04.2017, the court directed effective measures to control pollution, including consideration of diverting mining trucks to prevent health hazards to inhabitants, and ordered the provision of potable drinking water to affected villagers. The court also reserved liberty for any affected inhabitant to make a representation to the Pollution Control Board. Pending the proceedings, the respondents sought an expert opinion from the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, to recommend measures to control mining pollution. A report was submitted specifying required measures, and clarifications were sought on the applicability of emission and ambient air quality standards under Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(3B) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The affidavit of the Pollution Control Board reflected acceptance of these clarifications and the resolution to implement measures. The learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that the Pollution Control Board appeared to have learned of the necessary measures only after the court's cognizance, but the learned Advocate General clarified that measures were already known but clarifications were needed due to objections from mining companies. Intervenors, who were villagers, complained of non-compliance with the earlier direction to provide potable drinking water. The learned Advocate General assured that measures to supply potable water were being initiated and would be provided within one month of government approval. The court accepted the statement and, noting some improvement in pollution hazards due to measures already initiated, disposed of the petition by continuing the interim order of 27.04.2017 and directing the State Government to ensure compliance with all measures recommended by the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, as reflected in the Pollution Control Board's affidavit. The court further directed that any grievances raised by affected persons be expeditiously disposed of by the Pollution Control Board within one month of receipt. Individual contentions of intervenors were left open. The court recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law – Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation – Pollution Control – Constitution of India, Article 226 – High Court took suo motu cognizance based on newspaper report of severe pollution at Sonshi mine; interim orders issued directing measures to control pollution and provide potable water; Held that the State must implement expert recommendations and ensure compliance with environmental standards (Paras 3-6). B) Environmental Law – Expert Recommendations – Implementation – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, Rule 3(1), 3(3B) – Court accepted clarifications from Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad regarding emission standards and ambient air quality; directed State to implement all recommended measures; Held that compliance with such expert measures is essential to safeguard public health (Paras 4-6). C) Environmental Law – Right to Potable Water – The State government undertook to provide potable drinking water to affected villagers within one month of government approval; Court recorded this undertaking and directed compliance; Held that provision of potable water is an integral part of environmental remediation (Paras 5-6). D) Environmental Law – Grievance Redressal – Pollution Control Board directed to expeditiously dispose of complaints from affected citizens within one month; Individual intervenors' grievances left open for further consideration; Held that effective grievance mechanism ensures continued monitoring of pollution control measures (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether immediate measures are required to control pollution and protect health of villagers at Sonshi mine, and what directions should be issued
Final Decision
Petition disposed of by continuing interim order dated 27.04.2017; State Government directed to ensure compliance with all measures recommended by Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad as reflected in para 6 of Pollution Control Board's affidavit; potable drinking water to be provided to villagers within one month of government approval; Pollution Control Board to expeditiously dispose of grievances within one month; individual contentions of intervenors left open
Law Points
- High Court has power to take suo motu cognizance of environmental pollution
- state must implement expert recommendations
- provision of potable water is a necessary component of environmental remediation
- pollution control board must expeditiously resolve grievances
