INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION V. UNION OF INDIA, (2011) 12 SCC 768

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION V. UNION OF INDIA, (2011) 12 SCC 768 

FACTS

This is a very unusual and extraordinary litigation where even after fifteen years of the final judgment of this court in the case Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. UOI, AIR 1996 SC 1446, the litigation has been deliberately kept alive by filing one interlocutory application or the other in order to avoid compliance of the judgment. The said judgment of this Court has not been permitted to acquire finality till date. This is a classic example of how by abuse of the process of law even the final judgment of the apex court can be circumvented for more than a decade and a half.

This case is a classic illustration where even after decade and a half of the pronouncement of the judgment by this court based on the principle of `polluter pays', till date the polluters (concerned industries in this case) have taken no steps to ecologically restore the entire village and its surrounding areas or complied with the directions of this court at all. The orders of this court were not implemented by keeping the litigation alive by filing interlocutory and interim applications even after dismissal of the writ petition, the review petition and the curative petition by this court.

 

JUDGEMENT

The Court held that:

“While adjudicating, the courts must keep the following principles in view:

1. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the court to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by any party by invoking the jurisdiction of the court.
2. When a party applies and gets a stay or injunction from the court, it is always at the risk and responsibility of the party applying. An order of stay cannot be presumed to be conferment of additional right upon the litigating party.
3. Unscrupulous litigants be prevented from taking undue advantage by invoking jurisdiction of the Court.
4. A person in wrongful possession should not only be removed from that place as early as possible but be compelled to pay for wrongful use of that premises fine, penalty and costs. Any leniency would seriously affect the credibility of the judicial system.
5. No litigant can derive benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a court of law.
6. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs.
7. Litigation should not be permitted to turn into a fruitful industry so that the unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
8. The institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by delayed action of courts.

It is indeed astonishing that the orders of this court have not been implemented till date. The applicants have made all possible efforts to avoid compliance of the judgment of this Court. This is a clear case of abuse of process of the court.

The Court directed the M/s Hindustan Agro Chemical Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs.37.385 crores towards the costs of remediation. The amount which ought to have been deposited way back in 1997 has yet not been deposited by keeping the litigation alive. The Court opined that that the concerned applicant-industry (M/s Hindustan Agro Chemical Ltd.) must deposit the amount as directed by this Court with compound interest. Thousands of villagers have been adversely affected because no effective remedial steps have been taken so far. The applicant- industry has succeeded in their design in not complying with the court's order by keeping the litigation alive.

Consequently, the applicant-industry is directed to pay Rs.37.385 crores along with compound interest @ 12% per annum from 4.11.1997 till the amount is paid or recovered.

The Court also direct the applicant-industry to pay costs of Rs.10 lakhs in both the Interlocutory Applications. The amount of costs would also be utilized for carrying out remedial measure in village Bichhri and surrounding areas in Udaipur District of Rajasthan on the direction of the concerned authorities