{"id":213167,"date":"2004-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004"},"modified":"2017-12-13T17:25:30","modified_gmt":"2017-12-13T11:55:30","slug":"tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"Tamil Nadu Pollution Control &#8230; vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tamil Nadu Pollution Control &#8230; vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 04\/11\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, CHIEF JUSTICE\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN\n\nW.P. No. 2570 of 2000 and W.P.No. 9139 of 2000\nand\nW.M.P. No. 3964 and 13441 of 2000\n\nTamil Nadu Pollution Control Board\nrep. by its Member Secretary\n100, Anna Salai\nChennai  600 032                        ..Petitioner in both WPs\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State Human Rights Commission\n   Tamil Nadu\n   rep. by its Member\n    Hon'ble R. Rathinasami\n   35, Thiru-vi-ka Salai                ... 1st Respondent in\n   Chennai  600 014                     both the WPs\n\n2. Association of Radio and\n    Television Engineering Employees\n   All India Radio\n   rep. by its Unit Secretary           ... 2nd Respondent in\n   Tuticorin  628 008                   WP No. 2570\/2000\n\n3. S.P. Muthuraman\n   President, Tirunelveli District\n   Tamil Manila Congress Youth Wing\n   Tamil Manila Congress Dist Office\n   Vannarapettai                                ... 2nd Respondent in\n   Tirunelveli  627 003                         WP No. 9139\/2000\n\n\n        Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying\nfor a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :       Mrs.  Rita Chandrasekaran in both\n                        the Writ Petitions\n\nFor Respondents        :       Mr.  V.R.  Balasubramanian for R1 in\n                        both the Writ Petitions\n:COMMON ORDER\n\nA.  Kulasekaran, J)\n\n\n        The prayer in WP No.  2570 of 2000 is  for  a  Writ  of  Certioarified\nMandamus  to quash the enquiry proceedings in Case No.1444\/rrs\/99 in pursuance\nof the impugned order dated 07-12-1999 of the first respondent and direct  the\nfirst  respondent herein not to entertain any complaint or matters relating to\n'pollution' in the State of Tamil Nadu.\n\n        2.      The prayer sought for in WP No.  9139 of 2000 is for a Writ of\nCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the  records  and  to  quash  the  enquiry\nproceedings  in Case No.1025\/RRS\/2000 in pursuance of the impugned order dated\n\n\n17-05-2000 in so far as the petitioner\/Board is concerned and direct the first\nrespondent herein not to entertain any such complaint or matters  relating  to\n'pollution' in the State of Tamil Nadu.\n\n        3.      The case  of  the second respondent in WP No.  2570 of 2000 is\nthat they have given a complaint to the  first  respondent  herein  that  M\/s.\nSterlite Industries Limited, Tuticorin, which is a copper smelter plant, emits\nsulphur  dioxide which settles down in the vicinity of the factory causing air\npollution, as a result, the people of the vicinity including the employees  of\nthe second  respondent  are  seriously affected.  The first respondent, on the\ncomplaint of the second respondent felt  it  necessary  to  hold  enquiry  and\nissued the impugned notice.  The facts involved in the case is that W.P.  Nos.\n15501  to  15503\/1996,  5789\/1999  and 16861 of 1998 were filed seeking common\nrelief of quashing the clearance given by  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and\nForest and  Tamil  Nadu  State  Environment  Committee.    When  the said writ\npetitions are pending, the first respondent has  issued  the  impugned  notice\ndated  07-12-1999  to  the  writ  petitioner  alleging pollution caused by the\nSterlite Industries and for its closure.\n\n        4.      The case of the second respondent in WP No.  9139 of  2000  is\nthat it has given a complaint to the first respondent stating that M\/s.  India\nCements  Limited  is  causing  air pollution which affects the public and also\nagricultural activities in the locality.  On the  said  complaint,  the  first\nrespondent felt it necessary to hold an enquiry and issued the impugned notice\nto the  petitioner.   The facts involved in this case is in respect of alleged\nviolation caused by India Cements Limited, Shankar  Nagar,  Tirunelveli,  writ\nPetitions are  filed  in  WP  No.  7822 and 13508 of 1998 seeking direction to\nprevent the smoke emanated from the said factory and  to  assess  the  damages\ncaused to  the  residents  due  to  the  said  pollution.   When the said writ\npetitions are pending, the first respondent issued notice dated 17-05-2000  to\nthe  petitioner  alleging  pollution  caused  by  India Cements Limited and to\nassess the alleged damages caused to the residents.\n\n        5.      The  common  grounds  taken  in  the  writ  petitions  by  the\npetitioners  is  while  the  writ petitions are pending in respect of the same\nsubject matter before the Green bench of this Court, the first  respondent  is\nprohibited  under  Regulations (g) of Regulations 9 of State Human Rights (TN)\n(Procedure) Regulations, 1997.  The enquiry proceedings initiated by the first\nrespondent would lead to multiplicity of cases and encourage  unnecessary  and\nunlimited litigation.  It is not proper for the first respondent Commission to\nentertain  the  complaint  against  the  Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in\nrespect of matters relating to pollution, which falls under the provisions  of\nWater Act,  Air  Act and Environment (Protection) Act.  Any such action by the\nfirst respondent will defeat the very purpose of the aims and objects  of  the\nvarious  Acts,  under  which  the Board functions and exercising its statutory\npowers and it is an appellate authority constituted under the respective  Acts\nand Rules.    Under  Section  23  of  the  Environment Act, 1 986, the Central\nGovernment has delegated powers vested in it under Section 5 of the Act to the\nTamil Nadu Government by notification  of  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and\nForest dated 10-02-1988, in and by the said notification, the State Government\ncan also issue directions in writing to any persons, officers or any authority\nfor  closure  or  prohibition  or  regulation  of  any industrial operation or\nprocess and such person shall be bound to comply with such  conditions.    The\nCentral  Government,  under  the  Environment (Protection) Act constituted the\nLoss of Ecology (Prevention and payment of  Compensation)  authority  for  the\nState of Tamil Nadu, which is vested powers under Section 5 of the Environment\nAct and also assess loss to the ecology and environment for the affected areas\nand  identify  the  individual  and  families  which  suffered  because of the\npollution, while so, if any person is aggrieved in respect of  any  pollution,\nthey  can  seek  the  remedy  with  the said authority and there is no need to\nentertain any complaint by the first respondent.  Section 16 of Protection  of\nHuman Rights Act contemplates that persons likely to be prejudicially affected\nto be  heard.    If  on  any  such of the enquiry, the Commission considers it\nnecessary to enquire into the conduct of any person; or is of the opinion that\nthe reputation of any person is likely to  be  prejudically  affected  by  the\nenquiry,  it shall give to the person reasonable opportunity of being heard in\nthe enquiry and to produce evidence in his defence  provided that nothing  in\nthis  section  shall apply where the credit of the witness is being impeached.\nBy virtue of the above provisions, the first respondent ought not have treated\nthe petitioner as respondent in the case before it,  in  the  absence  of  any\nallegation  against  the  petitioner  in  the  complaint  filed  by the second\nrespondent in respect of either its conduct or reputation.\n\n        6.      The first respondent\/Commission has filed its  counter  in  WP\nNo.   2  570  of  2000  stating  that  the Commission is not aware of the case\npending before this Court; that the  violations  committed  by  third  parties\nnamely M\/s.   Sterlite Industries Limited within a period of one year prior to\n26-04-1999; that the subject matter  pending  before  the  Commission  do  not\nappear  to  be  the  subject  matter of the case pending before this Court; no\ndocuments were produced by the petitioner to show that the subject  matter  of\nthe  case  pending  before  this  Court  is  the  subject matter for which the\nCommission has ordered notice under Section 16  of  the  Protection  of  Human\nRights  Act; that if there is a complaint regarding deprivation of human right\nsuffered by any person due to pollution or lack of safety measures  and  clean\nenvironment, the Commission is empowered to hold an enquiry on such complaint;\nthat the averment that the Commission is not a civil Court and the Environment\n(Protection)  Act  does  not  exclude the jurisdiction of the Commission; that\nunder Section 10 (2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, the Commission  is\nempowered  to  regulate  its  own  procedure  read  with  Section  29  and the\nCommission framed its own regulation; that the Regulation 9 (g) provides  that\nthe  Commission shall dismiss in limine any complaint which are subjudice in a\nCourt or Tribunal, but the subject matter in dispute are not  subjudice  in  a\nCourt  or Tribunal; Section 1 2 (a) of Protection of Human Rights Act empowers\nthe Commission to inquire suo motu or on a  petition  presented  to  it  by  a\nvictim  or  any person on his behalf, into the complaint of violation of human\nrights or abatement thereof or negligence in the prevention of such  violation\nby  a public servant; that the petitioner herein is a public servant and there\nis negligence on the part of the petitioner herein in the prevention  of  such\nviolation,  hence,  it  had  rightly proceeded against the petitioner; that no\nimmunity can be conferred upon the petitioner or its staff; that after receipt\nof the complaint from the complainants, the Commission ordered notice  to  the\npetitioner  and the petitioner also appeared in person and later filed written\nstatement; that before considering the case  on  merits,  the  petitioner  has\napproached  this  Court; that the Commission has never rejected the objections\nof the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.\n\n        7.      Article 21 of the Constitution of India  guarantees  the  life\nwith dignity.    This  article worded with simple language, its scope has been\nextended to life, liberty, education, health etc., since  it  is  the  subject\nmatter in  large  number  of  litigation.  It prohibits deprivation of life or\npersonal liberty except due  process  of  law.    It  essentially  deals  with\npersonal liberty,  it  is expanded to cover environment and public health.  It\nconcern about 'life' when deals with environment; and concern about  'liberty'\nwhen deals with human rights.\n\n        8.      Human  right  means  the  rights  relating  to  life, liberty,\nequality and dignity of the  individual  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  or\nembodied  in  the  International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India.\nHuman Rights are those  minimal  rights,  which  every  individual  must  have\nagainst  the  State  or  other  public authority by virtue of his\/ her being a\nmember of the human family, irrespective of  any  other  consideration.    The\nfirst  documentary  used  the  word human right is found in the charter of the\nUnited Nations which was adopted at Sanfransisco on June 25, 1945 and ratified\nby majority of signatories in October of that year.  The first  concrete  step\nby way of formulating various human rights was taken by United Nations General\nAssembly  in  December  1948  by  adopting  the Universal Declaration of Human\nRights.  The Universal Declaration has operated merely as statement of  ideals\nwhich  was  not  of the nature of legal binding covenants and no machinery was\nprovided for its enforcement.  A deficiency  was  removed  by  United  Nations\nGeneral  Assembly  by  adopting  two  covenants in December 1956 which are the\n\n\ncovenants of (i) civil and human rights and (ii) economic, social and  secular\nrights.  Thereafter,  the two covenants came into force in December 1976.  The\nhistory given supra shows the emergence of human rights.\n\n        9.      In India, the Honourable Supreme Court has  drawn  inspiration\nfrom  the  international  charters with the result, Indian Courts attempted to\ninterpret statutes to conform to Rules of International Law or  convention  to\nwhich India  is  a  party.   The National Human Rights Commission is an expert\nbody in itself.  It is also a body sui jurist created under the Protection  of\nHuman  Rights  Act,  1993,  for  examining  and  investigating the question of\ncomplaints relating to violation of human rights as also the negligence on the\npart of the public servants in preventing such violation Paramjit Vs.    State\nof Punjab    AIR  1999  SC  340.    The State Commission is also endowed with\nsimilar powers.\n\n        10.     The relevant provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act,\n1993 runs as follows:-\n\n        Section 2 (1) (d)  Human rights means the rights  relating  to  life,\nliberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution\nor embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India.\n\n        Section 12.     Functions  of  the  Commission   The Commission shall\nperform all or any of the following functions namely-\n        (a)     inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim\nor any person on his behalf, into complaint of-\n        (i)     violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or\n        (ii)    negligence in the prevention of such  violation  by  a  public\nservant;\n        (b)     intervene  in  any  proceeding  involving  any  allegation  of\nviolation of human rights pending before a Court with  the  approval  of  such\nCourt.\n        (c)     visit,  under  intimation to the State Government, any jail or\nany other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons\nare detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection to\nstudy the living conditions of the inmates and make recommendations thereon;\n        (d)     review the safeguards provided by or under the constitution or\nany law for the time being in force for the protection  of  human  rights  and\nrecommend measures for their effective implementation;\n        (e)     review  the  factors, including acts of terrorism that inhibit\nthe enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures\n        (f)     study treaties and other international  instruments  on  human\nrights and make recommendations for their effective implementation\n        (g)     undertake and promote research in the field of human rights\n        (h)     spread human rights literacy among various sections of society\nand  promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these\nrights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means;\n        (i)     encourage the efforts of  non-governmental  organisations  and\ninstitutions working in the field of human rights;\n        (j)     such  other  functions  as  it  may consider necessary for the\npromotion of human rights.\n        Section 13.     Powers relating to  inquiries    (1)  The  Commission\nshall,  while inquiring into complaints under this Act, have all the powers of\na Civil Court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure,  190  8  (5  of\n1908), and in particular in respect of the following matters, namely;\n        (a)     summoning  and  enforcing  the  attendance  of  witnesses  and\nexamining them on oath;\n        (b)     discovery and production of any document;\n        (c)     receiving evidence on affidavits;\n        (d)     requisitioning any public record  or  copy  thereof  from  any\nCourt or Office;\n        (e)     issuing  Commissions  for  the  examination  of  witnesses  or\ndocuments;\n        (f)     any other matter which may be prescribed.\n\n\n        (2)     The Commission shall have power to require any person, subject\nto any privilege which may be claimed by that person under law  (45  of  1860)\nfor  the time being in force, to furnish information on such points or matters\nas, in the opinion of the Commission, may be useful for, or relevant  to,  the\nsubject matter of the inquiry and any person so required shall be deemed to be\nlegally  bound  to  furnish such information within the meaning of Section 176\nand Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code.\n        (3)     The Commission or any other officer, not below the rank  of  a\nGazetted Officer, specially authorised in this behalf by the    Commission may\nenter  any  building  or place where the Commission has reason to believe that\nany document relating to the subject matter of the enquiry may be  found,  and\nmay  seize  any such document or take extracts or copies therefrom, subject to\nthe provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,  in  so\nfar as, it may be applicable.\n        (4)     The  Commission  shall  be deemed to be a civil Court and when\nany offence as is described in Section 175, Section 178, Section 179,  Section\n180  or  Section  228  of  the  Indian  Penal Code is committed in the view or\npresence of the Commission, the Commission  may,  after  recording  the  facts\nconstituting  the  offence and the statement of the accused as provided for in\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, forward the case to a Magistrate  having\njurisdiction  to  try  the  same  and  the Magistrate to whom any such case is\nforwarded shall proceed to hear the complaint against the accused as  if,  the\ncase  has  been  forwarded  to  him  under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure, 1973.\n        (5)     Every proceeding before the Commission shall be deemed to be a\njudicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228,  and  for  the\npurposes  of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Commission shall be\ndeemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of  Section  195  and  Chapter\nXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.\n\n        Section 14 Investigation  (1)  The Commission may, for the purpose of\nconducting  any  investigation pertaining to the inquiry, utilise the services\nof any officer or investigating agency of  the  Central  Government  or  State\nGovernment  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Central  Government  or the State\nGovernment, as the case may be.\n        (2)     For the purpose of investigating into any matter pertaining to\nthe  inquiry,  any  officer  or  agency  whose  services  are  utilised  under\nsub-section (1) may, subject to the direction and control of the Commission -\n        (a)     summon  and  enforce  the attendance of any person and examine\nhim;\n        (b)     require the discovery and production of any document; and\n        (c)     requisitioning any public record or copy  therefrom  from  any\noffice\n        (3)     The  provisions  of  Section 15 shall apply in relation to any\nstatement made by a person before any officer or  agency  whose  services  are\nutilised under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to any statement made\nby a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission.\n        (4)     The  officer  or  agency  whose  services  are  utilised under\nsubsection (1) shall investigate into any matter pertaining to the inquiry and\nsubmit a report thereon to  the  Commission  within  such  period  as  may  be\nspecified by the Commission in this behalf.\n        (5)     The  Commission  shall satisfy itself about the correctness of\nthe facts stated and  the  conclusion,  if  any,  arrived  at  in  the  report\nsubmitted  to it under sub-section (4) and for this purpose the Commission may\nmake such inquiry (including the examination of  the  person  or  persons  who\nconducted or assisted in the investigation) as it thinks fit.\n        Section 16.     Persons  likely  to  be  prejudicially  affected to be\nheard.  If, at any stage of the inquiry, the Commission -\n        (a)     considers it necessary to enquire  into  the  conduct  of  any\nperson; or\n        (b)     is  of the opinion that the reputation of any person is likely\nto be prejudically affected by the enquiry,\n\n        it shall give to the person reasonable opportunity of being  heard  in\nthe enquiry and to produce evidence in his defence\n\nprovided  that  nothing  in  this  section shall apply where the credit of the\nwitness is being impeached.\n\n        Section 17.     Inquiry  into  Complaints:-  The   Commission,   while\ninquiring into the complaints of violations of human rights may -\n\n        (i)     call  for information or report from the Central Government or\nany State Government  or  any  other  authority  or  organisation  subordinate\nthereto within such time as may be specified by it:\n        Provided that\n        (a)     if  the  information or report is not received within the time\nstipulated by the Commission, it may proceed to inquire into the complaint  on\nits own;\n        (b)     if,  on  receipt  of  information or report, the Commission is\nsatisfied either that no further enquiry is  required  or  that  the  required\naction  has  been initiated or taken by the concerned Government or authority,\nit may not proceed with the complaint and inform the complainant accordingly.\n\n        Section 21 -\n\n        Section 36.     Matters not subject to jurisdiction of the  Commission\n-\n<\/pre>\n<p>        (1)     The  Commission  shall  not  inquire  into any matter which is<br \/>\npending before a State Commission or any  other  Commission  duly  constituted<br \/>\nunder any law for the time being in force\n<\/p>\n<p>        (ii)    The  Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into<br \/>\nany matter after the expiry of one  year  from  the  date  on  which  the  act<br \/>\nconstituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Regulation   8  of  National  Human  Rights  Commissions  (Procedures)<br \/>\nRegulations, 1997:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      General.- (a) Complaints may be  made  to  the  Commission  in<br \/>\nEnglish  or  Tamil  or Hindi or in any of the languages included in the Eighth<br \/>\nSchedule of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<pre>        (b)     No fee shall be chargeable on complaints\n        (c)     The complaints should  disclose  a  complete  picture  of  the\n<\/pre>\n<p>matter complained  against.  The Commission may, if necessary call for further<br \/>\ninformation  and  may  direct  affidavits  to  be  filed  in  support  of  the<br \/>\nallegations, whenever considered necessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.     Environment  protection  is  the  watchword  of  the last 20th<br \/>\nCentury, however, during the last two decades, there has  been  an  increasing<br \/>\nconcern  for  an  awareness  towards  environmental protection at the domestic<br \/>\nlevel as also international.  The Honourable Supreme Court, while  giving  due<br \/>\nimportance  to  the protection of environmental and having regard to the grave<br \/>\nconsequences of pollution of  water  and  air  and  need  for  protecting  and<br \/>\nimproving   the  natural  environment,  which  construes  to  be  one  of  the<br \/>\nfundamental duties under the statutes had expressed the view in  M.C.    Mehta<br \/>\nVs.Union  of  India  and  others  AIR 1988 SC 1115 that it is the duty of the<br \/>\nCentral Government to direct all the educational institutions throughout India<br \/>\nto teach at least one hour in  a  week  lessons  relating  to  protection  and<br \/>\nimprovement of  natural environment.  Article 48A of the Constitution provides<br \/>\nfor protection and improvement of environment and also safeguarding Forest and<br \/>\nwild life.  Article 15-A of the Constitution provides interalia that it  shall<br \/>\nbe  the  duty  of  every  Citizen  of India to protect and improve and protect<br \/>\nnatural environment and to have compassion with living creatures.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.     In India, we have sufficient legislations on  the  subject  in<br \/>\nthe  form  of  The  Environment  (Protection) Act, 1986, Water (Prevention and<br \/>\nControl) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control) Act 1981.  The  Honourable<br \/>\nSupreme  Court,  while interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution (Protection<br \/>\nfor life and personal liberty) has held in B.  Vadhera Vs.  Union of  India<br \/>\n1996  7  SCC  594 that right to protection and water free from pollution falls<br \/>\nwithin Article 21.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.     The relevant provisions of the Environment  (Protection)  Act,<br \/>\n198 6.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 2.    Definitions   In this Act, unless the context otherwise<br \/>\nrequires &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a)     &#8216;environment&#8217;  includes  water,   air   and   land   and   the<br \/>\ninterrelationship which exist among and between water, air and land, and human<br \/>\nbeings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)     &#8216;environment  pollutant&#8217;  means  any  solid, liquid or gaseous<br \/>\nsubstance present in such concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to<br \/>\nenvironment;\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 10 :  Powers of entry and inspection.  &#8211; (1)  Subject  to  the<br \/>\nprovisions  of this Section, any person empowered by the Central Government in<br \/>\nthis behalf shall have a right to enter, at all  reasonable  times  with  such<br \/>\nassistance as he considers necessary, any place.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a)     for  the  purpose  of  performing  any of the functions of the<br \/>\nCentral Government entrusted to him:\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)     for the purpose of determining  whether  and  if  so  in  what<br \/>\nmanner,  any  such  functions are to be performed or whether any provisions of<br \/>\nthis Act or the rules made thereunder  or  any  notice,  order,  direction  or<br \/>\nauthorisation  served,  made,  given or granted under this Act is being or has<br \/>\nbeen complied with:\n<\/p>\n<p>        (c)     for the  purpose  of  examining  and  testing  any  equipment,<br \/>\nindustrial  plant,  record, register, document or any other material object or<br \/>\nfor conducting a search of any building in which he has reason to believe that<br \/>\nan offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder has been or is being or<br \/>\nis about to be committee and for seizing any such equipment, industrial  plan,<br \/>\nrecord,  register,  document  or  other  material  object if he has reasons to<br \/>\nbelieve that  it  may  furnish  evidence  of  the  commission  of  an  offence<br \/>\npunishable under this Act or the rules made thereunder or that such seizure is<br \/>\nnecessary to prevent or mitigate environmental pollution.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2)     Every person carrying on any industry, operation or process or<br \/>\nhandling  any  hazardous  substance shall be bound to render all assistance to<br \/>\nthe person empowered by  the  Central  Government  under  subsection  (1)  for<br \/>\ncarrying  out  the  functions  under that sub-section and if he fails to do so<br \/>\nwithout any reasonable cause or excuse, he shall be guilty of an offence under<br \/>\nthis Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (3)     If  any  person  wilfully  delays  or  obstructs  any   person<br \/>\nempowered  by  the Central Government under sub-section (1) in the performance<br \/>\nof his functions, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (4)     The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (II  of<br \/>\n19 74), or in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, or any area in which<br \/>\nthat Code is not in force, the provisions of any corresponding law in force in<br \/>\nthat  State  or  area  shall, so far as may be, apply to any search or seizure<br \/>\nunder this section as they apply to any  search  or  seizure  made  under  the<br \/>\nauthority  of  a  warrant  issued under Section 94 of the said Code or, as the<br \/>\ncase may be, under the corresponding provision of the said law.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 11.  Power to take sample and  procedure  to  be  followed  in<br \/>\nconnection  therewith.- (1) The Central Government or any officer empowered by<br \/>\nit in this behalf, shall have power to take,  for  the  purpose  of  analysis,<br \/>\nsamples  of  air, water, soil or other substance from any factory, premises or<br \/>\nother place in such manner as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2)     The result of any analysis of a sample taken under sub-section<br \/>\n(1) shall not be admissible in evidence in any legal  proceedings  unless  the<br \/>\nprovisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) are complied with.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (3)     Subject  to  the  provisions  of  sub-section  (4), the person<br \/>\ntaking the sample under sub-section (1) shall &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a)     serve on the occupier or his agent or person in charge of  the<br \/>\nplace,  a  notice,  then  and there, in such form as may be prescribed, of his<br \/>\nintention to have it so analysed;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)     in the presence of  the  occupier  or  his  agent  or  person,<br \/>\ncollect a sample for analysis;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (c)     cause  the  sample  to  be placed in a container or containers<br \/>\nwhich shall be marked and sealed and shall also be signed both by  the  person<br \/>\ntaking the sample and the occupier or his agent or person;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (d)     send  without  delay,  the  container or the containers to the<br \/>\nlaboratory established or recognised by the Central Government  under  Section\n<\/p>\n<p>12.<\/p>\n<p>        (4)     When  a sample is taken for analysis under sub-section (1) and<br \/>\nthe person taking the sample serve on the occupier or his agent or  person,  a<br \/>\nnotice under clause (a) of sub-section (3), then-\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a)     in  a  case  where  the occupier, his agent or person wilfully<br \/>\nabsents himself, the person taking the sample shall  collect  the  sample  for<br \/>\nanalysis  to  be  placed  in  a container which shall be marked and sealed and<br \/>\nshall also be signed by the person taking the sample, and\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)     in a case where the occupier or his agent or person present at<br \/>\nthe time of taking the sample refuses to sign the marked and sealed  container<br \/>\nor  containers  of the sample as required under clause (c) of sub-section (3),<br \/>\nthe marked and sealed container or containers shall be signed  by  the  person<br \/>\ntaking the samples<\/p>\n<p>and  the  container  or  containers  shall be sent without delay by the person<br \/>\ntaking the sample for analysis to the  laboratory  established  or  recognised<br \/>\nunder Section 12 and such person shall inform the Government Analyst appointed<br \/>\nor  recognised  under  Section  13 in writing, about the wilful absence of the<br \/>\noccupier or his agent or person, as the case may be, his refusal to  sign  the<br \/>\ncontainer or containers.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 12.   Environment  Laboratories.  &#8211; (1) The Central Government<br \/>\nmay, by notification in the Official Gazzette, &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a)     establish one or more environmental laboratories;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)     recognise  one  or  more   laboratories   or   institutes   as<br \/>\nenvironmental  laboratories  to  carry  out  the  functions  entrusted  to  an<br \/>\nenvironmental laboratory under this Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2)     The Central Government may, by notification  in  the  Official<br \/>\nGazzette, make rules specifying &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a)     the functions of the environmental laboratory;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)     the  procedure  for  the  submission to the said laboratory of<br \/>\nsamples of air, water, soil or other substance for analysis or tests, the form<br \/>\nof the laboratory report thereon and the fees payable for such report:\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 13.  Government Analysts.- The  Central  Government,  may,  by<br \/>\nnotification in the official gazzette, appoint or recognise such persons as it<br \/>\nthinks  fit and having the prescribed qualifications to be Government Analysts<br \/>\nfor the purpose of analysis of samples of air, water, soil or other  substance<br \/>\nsent  for  analysis  to any environmental laboratory established or recognised<br \/>\nunder sub-section (1) of Section 12 .\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 14.  Reports of Government Analysts.- Any document  purporting<br \/>\nto  be  a report signed by a Government Analyst may be used as evidence of the<br \/>\nfacts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 15.  Penalty for contravention of the provisions  of  the  Act<br \/>\nand  the  rules,  orders  and directions.- (1) Whoever fails to comply with or<br \/>\ncontravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made or orders  or<br \/>\ndirections  issued  thereunder,  shall,  in  respect  of  each such failure or<br \/>\ncontravention, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent  to<br \/>\nfive years or with fine which may extent to one lakh rupees, or with both, and<br \/>\nin case the failure or contravention continues, with additional fine which may<\/p>\n<p>extend  to  five  thousand  rupees  for every day during which such failure or<br \/>\ncontravention continues after the conviction for the  first  such  failure  or<br \/>\ncontravention.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2)     if the failure or contravention referred to in sub-section (1)<br \/>\ncontinues  beyond  a  person  of  one  year  after the date of conviction, the<br \/>\noffender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend  to<br \/>\nseven years.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 16.   Offences by Companies.- (1) Where any offence under this<br \/>\nAct has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence<br \/>\nwas committed, was directly in charge of, and was responsible to, the  company<br \/>\nfor  the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall<br \/>\nbe deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall  be  liable  to  be  proceeded<br \/>\nagainst and punished accordingly:\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided  that  nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any<br \/>\nsuch person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he  proves  that<br \/>\nthe  offence  was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due<br \/>\ndiligence to prevent the commission of such offence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2)     Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section  (1),  where<br \/>\nan  offence  under  this  Act has been committed by a company and it is proved<br \/>\nthat the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of , or  is<br \/>\nattributable  to  any neglect on the part of; any director, manager, secretary<br \/>\nor other officer of the company, such director, manager,  secretary  or  other<br \/>\nofficer  shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable<br \/>\nto be proceeded against and punished accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 18.     Protection of action taken in good  faith:-  No  suit,<br \/>\nprosecution  or  legal  proceedings  shall  lie  against the Government or any<br \/>\nofficer or other employee of the Government or any authority constituted under<br \/>\nthis Act or any member, officer or other employee of such authority in respect<br \/>\nof anything which is done or intended to be done in good faith in pursuance of<br \/>\nthis Act or the rules, made or orders or directions issued thereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 19.  Cognizance of offences.  &#8211; No Court shall take cognizance<br \/>\nof any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by-\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a)     the Central Government or any authority or officer  authorised<br \/>\nin this behalf by that Government; or\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)     any  person  who has given notice of not less than sixty days,<br \/>\nin the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to  make<br \/>\na  complaint,  to  the  Central  Government  or  on  the  authority or officer<br \/>\nauthorised as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 22.     Bar of  jurisdiction    No  civil  Court  shall  have<br \/>\njurisdiction  to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of anything done,<br \/>\naction taken or order or direction issued by the  Central  Government  or  any<br \/>\nother  authority  or  officer  in  pursuance  of  any power conferred by or in<br \/>\nrelation to its or his functions under this Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 24.     Effect of other laws  (1) Subject to  the  provisions<br \/>\nof  sub-section  (2),  the provisions of this Act and the rules or orders made<br \/>\ntherein shall have  effect  notwithstanding  anything  inconsistent  therewith<br \/>\ncontained in any enactment other than this Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2)     Where  any  act  or omission constitutes an offence punishable<br \/>\nunder this Act and also under any other Act then the offender found guilty  of<br \/>\nsuch  offence shall be liable to be punished under the other Act and not under<br \/>\nthis Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.     A cursory reading of the relevant sections would make it clear<br \/>\nthat the authorities  under  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  Act  and  the<br \/>\nEnvironment (Protection) Act operates in different areas or field.\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.     Harmonious interpretation of the provisions is justifiable and<br \/>\nacceptable.   The  principles  of  interpretation  is  that no provision of an<br \/>\nenactment should be interpreted and understood in such a manner as  to  render<br \/>\nanother  provision  in  the  same  or another enactment totally ineffective or<br \/>\ninoperative unless there is expression intention to that effect.   As  pointed<br \/>\nout by  the  Apex  Court  in PolliSetti Vs.  Kalluri Kameshwaramma AIR 1991 SC<br \/>\n604, statutes are made for public good and must be liberally construed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        16.     The language of statutory provisions of both  Acts  are  clear<br \/>\nand  unambiguous,  however  for  limited  purpose  of  determining the area of<br \/>\noperation of the Acts, it may be proper to see the purpose or  object  of  the<br \/>\nlegislation,  it  is  permissible to look into the situations which prevail at<br \/>\nthe time when the Law was passed and which necessiated  the  passing  of  that<br \/>\nLaw.  Shashikant Laxman Kale Vs.Union of India AIR 1990 SC 2114.\n<\/p>\n<p>        17.     The  objects and reasons of the Protection of Human Rights Act<br \/>\nare as follows;\n<\/p>\n<p>        India is a party to international covenants  on  civil  and  political<br \/>\nright  and  the  international  covenants  on  economical, social and cultural<br \/>\nrights adopted by the General Assembly of United Nations on 16-12-1966.  After<br \/>\nwide  range  of  discussions,  the  Human  Rights  Commission  Bill  1993  was<br \/>\nintroduced in  the  Lok  Sabha  on  14-05-1993.  In view of the urgency of the<br \/>\nmatter, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 was promulgated by  President<br \/>\nof India  on  28-09-1993.    The  salient  features  of the bill were that the<br \/>\nCommission will be a fact-finding body with powers  to  conduct  enquiry  into<br \/>\ncomplaint of  violation  of  human rights.  The Commission will be assisted by<br \/>\ninvestigating agency of Central and State Governments.    The  Government  may<br \/>\nalso constitute one or more special investigating teams.  The State Government<br \/>\nmay  set  up  Human  Rights  Court for speedy trial on offences arising out of<br \/>\nviolation of human rights and may also specify a Public Prosecutor or  appoint<br \/>\nan Advocate as a Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting cases<br \/>\nin such Courts.  The Commission may take steps for effective implementation of<br \/>\nthe existing  Laws  and  treaties  on  common rights.  The Commission may also<br \/>\nundertake research in the field  of  human  rights  and  measures  to  promote<br \/>\nawareness of human rights among all sections of the society.\n<\/p>\n<p>        18.     The   statements  of  objects  and  reasons  relating  to  The<br \/>\nEnvironment (Protection) Act, 1986 are decline in  environmental  quality  has<br \/>\nbeen  evidenced  by increasing pollution, loss of vegetal cover and biological<br \/>\ndiversity, excessive  concentrations  of  harmful  chemicals  in  the  ambient<br \/>\natmosphere  and  in  food  chains, growing risk of environmental accidents and<br \/>\nthreats to life support system.  Although  there  are  existing  laws  dealing<br \/>\ndirectly  or indirectly with several environmental matters, it is necessary to<br \/>\nhave a general legislation for environmental  protection  and  also  to  cover<br \/>\nmajor  areas  of  environmental  hazards, multiplicity of regulatory agencies,<br \/>\nneed for an authority which can assume the lead role of studying, planning and<br \/>\nimplementing  long  term  requirements  of  environmental  safety   and   give<br \/>\nprotection  to  and  coordinate  a  system  of speedy and adequate response to<br \/>\nemergency situations threatening  the  environment.    In  view  of  the  said<br \/>\nfactors,  there  is  an  urgent  need for enactment of a general resolution on<br \/>\nenvironmental  pollution  which  interalia  should  enable  co-ordination   of<br \/>\nactivities   of   various   regulatory  agencies,  creation  of  authority  or<br \/>\nauthorities with advocate powers for environmental protection,  regulation  of<br \/>\ndischarge  of  environmental  pollutants and handling of hazardous substances,<br \/>\nspeedy  response  in  the  event  of  accidents  threatening  environment  and<br \/>\ndeterrent  punishment  to  those  who  endanger  human  environment safety and<br \/>\nhealth.\n<\/p>\n<p>        19.     It is  seen  from  the  said  objects  and  reasons  that  the<br \/>\nEnvironment  (Protection) Act, 1986, Water (Prevention and Control) Act, Air (<br \/>\nPrevention and Control) Act, Environment  Protection  Rules,  1986  and  other<br \/>\nRules  namely  Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling), Manufacture, Storage<br \/>\nand Import of Hazardous Chemicals, Hazardous Microorganism,  Biological  Waste<br \/>\n(Management   and  Handling),  Plastic  Manufacture,  Sale  and  Usage,  Noise<\/p>\n<p>Pollution (Regulation and Control), Ozone depleting Substances (Regulation and<br \/>\nControl) and The Batteries ( Management and Handling) Rules are  comprehensive<br \/>\nto deal with pollution and also give protection from pollution.\n<\/p>\n<p>        20.     Section  2(a)  of  the  Environment (Protection) Act defines &#8216;<br \/>\nenvironment&#8217;.  Section 2(b) defines &#8216;environmental Pollutant&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 10 of the environment (Protection) Act  enables  the  Officers<br \/>\nempowered  by  the  Central  Government to enter and inspect any place for the<br \/>\npurpose of performing any functions entrusted under the legislation.  It  also<br \/>\nempowers  to  punish  any  person  wilfully  delays  or  obstructs  any person<br \/>\nempowered by the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 11 of the environment (Protection) Act  deals  with  power  to<br \/>\nlift samples and the procedure connected therewith.  Section 11 of Environment<br \/>\n(Protection)  Act  is similar to Section 21 of Water ( Prevention and Control)<br \/>\nAct and Section 26 of Air (Prevention and Control) Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section  12  of  the  environment  (Protection)   Act   speaks   about<br \/>\nestablishment of environmental laboratories.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section   17  of  the  environment  (Protection)  Act  fixes  criminal<br \/>\nliability on the heads of departments of the Government where  an  offence  is<br \/>\ncommitted  and the Head of the Departments is unable to prove that the offence<br \/>\nwas committed without his knowledge or that  he  exercised  due  diligence  to<br \/>\nprevent commission  of  such  offence.  Section 17 is similar to Section 48 of<br \/>\nWater (Prevention and Control) Act and  Section  41  of  Air  (Prevention  and<br \/>\nControl) Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section  18 of the Environmental (Protection) Act, Section 59 of Water<br \/>\n(Prevention and Control) Act and Section 42 of Air  (Prevention  and  Control)<br \/>\nAct  are  almost  similar  which  protect the officers of the employees of the<br \/>\nGovernment from prosecution  or  legal  proceedings  for  the  cause  done  or<br \/>\nintended  to  be done in good faith in pursuance of this Act or the rules made<br \/>\nor orders or directions issued thereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act prohibits any Court  to<br \/>\ntake  cognisance  of any offences under the Act, except on a complaint made by<br \/>\nthe Central Government or any authority or officer authorised in  this  behalf<br \/>\nby  that Government or any person, who has given notice of not less than sixty<br \/>\ndays of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government, if within<br \/>\nthose period the Government or  Officer  or  authority  has  itself  made  the<br \/>\ncomplaint  and  has  not communicated to such person which has refused to make<br \/>\nsuch a complaint.  Section 19 is similar to Section 49  of  Water  (Prevention<br \/>\nand Control) Act and Section 43 of Air (Prevention and Control) Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section  22  of the Environment (Protection) Act is similar to Section<br \/>\n58 of Water (Prevention and Control) Act and Section 46 of  Air  (  Prevention<br \/>\nand Control) Act, which bars jurisdiction of civil court to entertain any suit<br \/>\nor  proceedings  in  respect  of  any  action  done,  action taken or order or<br \/>\ndirection issued by the Central Government or any other authority  or  officer<br \/>\nin  pursuance  of any powers conferred by or in relation to its function under<br \/>\nthe legislation.    Section  24  (1)  of  the  Environment  (Protection)   Act<br \/>\ncontemplates  that  subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24<br \/>\nthe provisions of this Act and the Rules or orders  made  therein  shall  have<br \/>\neffect   notwithstanding   anything  inconsistent  therein  contained  in  any<br \/>\nenactment other than this Act.  The  expression  &#8216;prevents&#8217;  reliance  on  any<br \/>\nother Law to the contrary.\n<\/p>\n<p>        21.     It  is  seen  from  the  above analysis that the Environment (<br \/>\nProtection) Act, 1986 is a Special Act for environmental protection by way  of<br \/>\nstudying,  planning  and  implementing long term requirements on environmental<br \/>\nissues and to give protection to co-ordinate a system for speedy and  adequate<br \/>\nresponse to emergency situations threatening the environment.  It also enables<br \/>\nthe  authorities  to  co-ordinate  the  activities  of  the various regulatory<br \/>\nagencies.\n<\/p>\n<p>        22.     Notices were issued by the first  respondent  herein  invoking<br \/>\nSection  16  of  the  Protection  of  Human Rights Act arraying the petitioner<br \/>\nherein as respondent.  The alleged violation of human rights in the  said  two<br \/>\ncases are  third  parties  caused  air  pollution.    Section  42  of  the Air<br \/>\n(Prevention  and  Control)  Act,  which  is  similar  to  Section  18  of  the<br \/>\nEnvironment  (Protection)  Act  protects  the  officers  and  employees of any<br \/>\nauthority constituted under the Act or any member, officer or other  employees<br \/>\nof  such  authority in respect of anything done or intended to be done in good<br \/>\nfaith in pursuance of this Act or the  Rules  made  or  orders  or  directions<br \/>\nissued thereunder.    Section  42  of  the  Air  (Prevention  and Control) Act<br \/>\nprotects the employees of the Board or any officer  or  any  member  or  other<br \/>\nemployee  of  the  Board,  in respect of anything which done or intended to be<br \/>\ndone in good faith in pursuance of this Act or Rules made thereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>        23.     Joint reading of both the environment (Protection) Act and Air<br \/>\n(Prevention and Control) Act make it clear that  no  suit  or  prosecution  or<br \/>\nlegal proceedings shall lie against any authority constituted under the Act or<br \/>\nany member, officer or other employee of such authority in respect of anything<br \/>\nwhich is done or intended to be done in good faith in pursuance of this Act or<br \/>\nthe Rules, made or orders or directions issued thereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>        24.     It  is  not  in dispute that the subject matter, for which the<br \/>\nimpugned notice has been issued by the Commission is the subject matter of the<br \/>\nwrit petition Nos.  15501 to 15503 of 1996, 5789  of  1997,  7822,  13508  and<br \/>\n16861  of  1998 and 3964 of 2000 pending before this Court and this Court also<br \/>\nissued directions from time to time to the petitioner to permit the  said  two<br \/>\nIndustries  to  function with necessary precautions and safety measures as per<br \/>\nnorms.\n<\/p>\n<p>        25.     Section 36, read with Regulation (g) of Regulations 9 of State<br \/>\nHuman Rights (TN) (Procedure) Regulations, 1997 prohibits the Commission  from<br \/>\nenquiring into  any matter, which is pending before any Court or Tribunal.  In<br \/>\nview of the said facts, the impugned notices issued by the  Commission  citing<br \/>\nthe petitioner herein as a respondent is quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        26.     The writ   petitions  are  ordered  accordingly.    No  costs.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected WMPs are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsh<br \/>\nIndex :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Member<br \/>\nState Human Rights Commission<br \/>\nTamil Nadu<br \/>\n35, Thiru-vi-ka Salai<br \/>\nChennai 600 014<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Tamil Nadu Pollution Control &#8230; vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04\/11\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN W.P. No. 2570 of 2000 and W.P.No. 9139 of 2000 and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-213167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tamil Nadu Pollution Control ... vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamil Nadu Pollution Control ... vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-13T11:55:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamil Nadu Pollution Control &#8230; vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-13T11:55:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3794,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004\",\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Pollution Control ... vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-13T11:55:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Pollution Control &#8230; vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tamil Nadu Pollution Control ... vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamil Nadu Pollution Control ... vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-13T11:55:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamil Nadu Pollution Control &#8230; vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-13T11:55:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004"},"wordCount":3794,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004","name":"Tamil Nadu Pollution Control ... vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-13T11:55:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-pollution-control-vs-the-state-human-rights-commission-on-4-november-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamil Nadu Pollution Control &#8230; vs The State Human Rights Commission on 4 November, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=213167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}