SUBHASH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR, AIR 1991 SC 420

 

SUBHASH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR, AIR 1991 SC 420

 

FACTS

This petition is under Art. 32 of the Constitution by Subhash Kumar for the issue of a writ or direction directing the Director of Collieries, West Bokaro Collieries at Ghatotand, District Hazaribagh in the State of Bihar and the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. to stop forthwith discharge of slurry/sludge from its washeries at Ghatotand in the District of Hazaribagh into Bokaro river. This petition is by way of public interest litigation for preventing the pollution of the Bokaro river water from the sludge/slurry discharged from the washeries of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.

CASE HISTORY

The petitioner has alleged that the surplus waste in the form of sludge/slurry is discharged as an effluent from the washeries into the Bokaro river which gets deposited in the bed of the river and it also gets settled on land including the petitioner’s land. The Petitioner has, accordingly, claimed relief for issue of direction directing the respondents which include the State of Bihar, the Bihar Pollution Control Board, Union of India and Tata Iron & Steel Co., to take immediate steps prohibiting the pollution of the Bokaro river water from the discharge of slurry into the Bokaro river and to take further action under provisions of the Act against the Tata Iron & Steel Co.

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Bihar State Pollution Board it is asserted that the Tata Iron & Steel Co. operates open case and underground mining. The Company in accordance to Ss. 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 applied for sanction from the Board to discharge their effluent from their outlets. The Board before granting sanction analysed their effluent which was being watched constantly and monitored to see that the discharge does not affect the water quality of the Bokaro river adversely.

The respondent company prevented the petitioner from collecting slurry from its land and as it further refused to sell any additional quantity of slurry to him, he entertained a grudge against the respondent company. In order to feed fat his personal grudge he has taken several proceedings against the respondent-company including the present proceedings.

JUDGEMENT

Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Apex Court. It provides for an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the Fundamental rights of a citizen. Right to life is a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art. 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. A petition under Art. 32 for the prevention of pollution is maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers or journalists. But recourse to proceeding under Art. 32 of the Constitution should be taken by a person genuinely interested in the protection of society on behalf of the community. Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Art. 32 are entertained, it would amount to abuse of process of the Court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court.

We are of the opinion that this petition has been filed not in any public interest but for the petitioner’s personal interest