CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2991 of 2004 PETITIONER: Modern Terry Towel Ltd. RESPONDENT: Solanki Muljibhai Revabhai Harijan Vyas & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/2004 BENCH: CJI & G.P. MATHUR. JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11462/2002)
RAJENDRA BABU, CJI :
Leave granted.
A writ petition was filed in the High Court by a
resident within the vicinity of a unit of the appellant on
the allegation that the appellant was letting out its
trade effluents outside factory premises. On
16.12.1996 the High Court appointed a Committee to
make a report regarding discharge of effluent. On the
filing of Report by that Committee a show cause notice
was issued to the appellant on 26.12.1996 in the light
of the contents thereof. Thereafter, the High Court on
9.1.1997 directed the closure of the factory. In the
course of the order made by the High Court it was
noticed that the appellant could not say that there was
no discharge of trade effluent. The High Court directed
the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000/- and also
ordered its closure. On 16.1.1997 by another order
made the High Court directed the appellant to deposit a
sum of Rs. 75 lakhs as a condition for restarting of the
unit . On depositing such amounts in instalments the
High Court directed restarting of certain activities which
do not generate any kind of effluent. Then by an order
made on 27.1.1998 the High Court disposed of the
matter. In the course of the order made on that day it
was noticed that an agreement had been entered into
between the petitioner and certain other persons
residing in the village with the appellant; that effluent
treatment plant (ETP) was about to be commissioned
and this would include training of the people of the
industry for the operation and of the maintenance of
the ETP; that the report filed by the Gujarat Pollution
Control Board on examining the samples collected on
20.01.1999 indicated that the appellant is meeting the
norms; that the petitioners and others in the writ
petition filed before the High Court had been paid
damages arising on account of discharge of effluents
and had entered into an agreement which was filed
before the High Court; and that the unit having met
with the requirements of the Gujarat Pollution Control
Board. On that basis, the High Court disposed of the
writ petition allowing the same to be withdrawn.
However, as regards the refund of the amount
deposited by the appellant before the Court, the High
Court stated that this aspect could be considered at a
later stage.
Thereafter, an application was made for refund of
the said amount in deposit. The High Court disposed of
that application without making any order by making it
clear that such application could be revived after the
cases pending before this Court are disposed of.
In this appeal, it is urged before us that the writ
petition having been withdrawn and the concerned
persons who had suffered damage on account of
discharge of effluents having been compensated,
question of continuing to keep the said amounts
deposited in Court would not arise. It is further
submitted that this case stands entirely on different
footing from other cases pending before this Court
because in other cases discharge of effluent was to a
common ETP while no such discharge had been made
in this case, except some of the effluents having been
discharged into lands surrounding the factory.
Degradation of environment or damage, if any,
suffered by the residents residing in the vicinity having
been satisfied with the compensation paid to them in
terms of the agreement which was produced before the
High Court, the ETP having been set up and with
pollution control norms having been satisfied, the High
Court ought to have considered question of refund of
the amounts deposited with Court and should have
treated this case on a different footing altogether and
not connected with other cases pending before this
Court.
Therefore, we set aside the order made by the
High Court, remit the matter to the High Court for fresh
consideration of the application for refund and to
dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.