M.C. MEHTA V. KAMAL NATH, AIR 2000 SC 1997
M.C. MEHTA V. KAMAL NATH, AIR 2000 SC 1997
FACTS:
This case was in pursuance to the case titled M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388, a notice was issued requiring the Motel to show cause on two points: (I) why the Motel be not asked to pay compensation to reverse the degraded environment, and (ii) why pollution fine, in addition, be not imposed.
ISSUES:
- Why the Motel be not asked to pay compensation to reverse the degraded environment?
- Why pollution fine was not imposed?
CASES REFERRED:
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, [AIR 1996 SC 1446]: It was held that once the activity carried on was hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on that activity was liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by that activity.
The same was reiterated in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India [AIR 1996 SC 2715].
Scope of Article 142
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India [AIR 1998 SC 1895]: In this case, the decision of this Court in V.C. Mishra, Re [(1995) 2 SCC 584] was partly overruled, it was held that the plenary power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution are inherent in the Court and are “COMPLEMENTARY” to those powers which are specifically conferred on the Court by various statutes. The Court further observed that though the powers conferred on the court by Article 142 are curative in nature, they cannot be construed as powers which authorise the court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant. The Court further observed that this power cannot be used to “supplant” substantive law applicable to the case or cause under consideration of the court. Article 142 even with the width of its amplitude, cannot be used to build a new edifice where none existed earlier, by ignoring express statutory provisions dealing with a subject and thereby achieve something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly.
JUDGEMENT:
The Court finally stated that:
“....in addition to the damages which have to be paid by M/s. Span Motel, as directed in the main judgment, it cannot be punished with fine unless the entire procedure prescribed under the Act is followed and M/s. Span Motel are tried for any of the offences contemplated by the Act and is found guilty. The notice issued to M/s. Span Motel why pollution fine be not imposed upon them is, therefore, withdrawn.”
Pollution is a tort:
The Court held that “Pollution is a civil wrong. By its very nature, it is a tort committed against the community as a whole. A person, therefore, who is guilty of causing pollution has to pay damages (compensation) for restoration of the environment and ecology. He has also to pay damages to those who have suffered loss on account of the act of the offender. The powers of this Court under Article 32 are not restricted and it can award damages in a PIL or a Writ Petition as has been held in a series of decisions. In addition to damages aforesaid, the person guilty of causing pollution can also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner. While withdrawing the notice for payment of pollution fine, we direct a fresh notice to be issued to M/s. Span Motel to show cause why in addition to damages, exemplary damage be not awarded for having committed the acts set out and detailed in the main judgment.”