M.C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1988 SC 1115
(THE GANGA POLLUTION (MUNICIPALITIES) CASE)
FACTS
The Court in its judgment in the case titled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [AIR 1988 SC 1037] issued certain directions with regard to the industries in which the business of tanning was being carried on at Jajmau near Kanpur on the banks of the river Ganga. Similarly, the Court directed that the case in respect of the municipal bodies and the industries which were responsible for the pollution of the water in the river Ganga would be taken up for consideration next. Hence, the present case. Since the Court found that Kanpur was one of the biggest cities on the banks of the river Ganga, so in this case it took up for consideration the case in respect of the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika.
REFERRED CASE LAWS
Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association v. British Celanese Ltd.[(1953) Ch 149]: In common law the Municipal Corporation can be restrained by an injunction in an action brought by a riparian owner who has suffered on account of the pollution of water in a river caused by the Corporation by discharging into the river insufficiently treated sewage from discharging such sewage into the river.
JUDGEMENT
The Court stated that Sections 3 and 4 of the Water Act provide for the constitution of the Central Board and State Boards respectively.
Functions of State Board and Central Board:
The Central Board is also required to advise the Central Government on any matter concerning the prevention and control of water pollution and to co-ordinate the activities of the State Boards. The Central Board is also required to provide technical assistance and guidance to the State Boards, carry out and sponsor investigations and research relating to problems of water pollution and prevention, control or abatement of water pollution.
The functions of the State Board include giving advise the State Government on any matter concerning the prevention, control or abatement of water pollution, the State Board is required to:
(i) to plan a comprehensive programme for the prevention, control or abatement of pollution of streams and wells in the State and to secure the execution thereof,
(ii) to collect and disseminate information relating to water pollution and prevention, control or abatement thereof;
(iii) to encourage, conduct and participate in investigations and research relating to problems of water pollution and prevention, control or abatement of water pollution;
(iv) to inspect sewage or trade effluents, works and plants for the treatment of sewage and trade effluents;
(v) to review plans, specifications or other data relating to plants set up for the treatment of water, works for the purification thereof and the system for the disposal of sewage or trade effluents or in connection with the grant of any consent as required by the Water Act;
(vi) to evolve economical and reliable methods of treatment of sewage and trade effluents, having regard to the peculiar conditions of soil, climate and water resources of different regions and more especially the prevailing flow characteristics of water in streams and wells which render it impossible to attain even the minimum degree of dilution, and
(vii) to lay down standards of treatment of sewage and trade effluents to be discharged into any particular stream taking into account the minimum fair weather dilution available in that stream and the tolerance limits of pollution permissible in the water of the stream, after the discharge of such effluents.
Functions of Municipalities:
The Court further held as follows: “The nuisance caused by the pollution of the river Ganga is a public nuisance, which is wide spread in range and indiscriminate in its effect and it would not be reasonable to expect any particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community at large. The petition has been entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to move this Court in order to enforce the statutory provisions which impose duties on the municipal authorities and the Boards constituted under the Water Act. We have already set out the relevant provisions of the statute which impose those duties on the authorities concerned. On account of their failure to obey the statutory duties for several years the water in the river Ganga at Kanpur has become so much polluted that it can no longer be used by the people either for drinking or for bathing. The Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur has to bear the major responsibility for the pollution of the river near Kanpur City.”
Duty of Central Government:
The Court held that it is the duty of the Central Government to direct all the educational institutions throughout India to teach at least for one hour in a week lessons relating to the protection and the improvement of the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life in the first ten classes.
Suggestions of the Court:
In order to rouse amongst the people the consciousness of cleanliness of environment the Government of India and the Governments of States and of the Union Territories may consider the desirability of organising “Keep the city clean” week (Nagar Nirmalikarana Saptaha), ‘keep the town clean’ week (Pura Nirmalikarana Saptaha) and ‘Keep the village clean’ week (Grama Nirmalakarana Saptaha) in every city, town and village throughout India at least once a year. During that week the entire city, town or village should be kept as far as possible clear, tidy and free from pollution of land, water and air. The organisation of the week should be entrusted to the Nagar Mahapalikas, Municipal Corporations, Town Municipalities, Village Panchayats or such other local authorities having jurisdictiion over the area in question.
The Court held that whatever has been stated in this judgement applies mutatis mutandis to all other Mahapalikas and Municipalities which have jurisdiction over the areas through which the river Ganga flows.