CASE LAWS
Do not leave any question. We have done everything. You know it all.
GOOD LUCK!!
Read the following content with the instructions .
1. M.C. MEHTA v. UOI
This we considering to be Oleum gas leakage case. This case is important for absolute liability
principle.
Shriram Food and Fertilizers, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mill Limited was a privately owned
company manufacturing caustic chlorine and oleum. “All units were set up in a single complex
situated in approximately 76 acres and they are surrounded by thickly populated colonies such
as Punjabi Bagh, West Patel Nagar, Karampura, Ashok Vihar, Tri Nagar and Shastri Nagar and
within a radius of 3 kilometres from this complex there is population of approximately 2,
00,000.” This by nature of the chemical processes involved was a polluting industry and was
creating a nuisance for the surrounding community of people. To address this issue a public
interest litigation (No. 12,739, 1985) was filed by environmentalist and lawyer, M.C. Mehta,
requesting the Supreme Court for the immediate closure and relocation of the industrial
complex.
On the 4th of December 1985, one month after the petition was filed and a day after the first
anniversary of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the worst industrial mishap in the history of mankind,
Oleum had leaked from the complex into the surrounding community resulting in one fatality
and many injuries.
Since the tragedy at Bhopal was fresh in the Public’s mind, there was a very strong outcry over
this incident and resulted in drastic steps by the administration. The Inspector of Factories and
the Assistant Commissioner of Factories issued orders to shut down the plant on the 7th and
24th of December respectively under the Factories Act (1948). Shriram responded by filing
writ petitions of itself (No. 26 of 1986) to nullify the two orders and interim opening of its
caustic chlorine plant manufacturing; glycerine, soap, hard oil, etc.On behalf of the gas leak
victims the Delhi Legal aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association filed for
compensation along with the original petition of M.C. Mehta.
Absolute Liability
An enterprise, which is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a
potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in
the surrounding areas owes an Absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure
that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous activity which
it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the
highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity the enterprise
must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to enterprise
to say that it has taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence
on its part." The Court also laid down that the measure of compensation payable within the
capacity of the enterprise, so that the same can have the deterrent effect. The Court held that
"We would also like to point out that the measure of compensation in the kind of eases referred
to must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such
, compensation must have a deterrent effect. The large and more prosperous the enterprise,
greater must be the amount of the compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account
of an accident in the carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the
enterprise.
Note: Strict liability rule of Rylands v. Fletcher was considered to be not applicable her in this
case. A principle stricter than strict liability was required.
2. RURAL LITIGATION ENTITLEMENT KENDRA v. STATE OF UP
This brought about the environmental jurisprudence has to right to life includes right to
healthy environment.
According to Article 21 of the constitution, “no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Article 21 has
received liberal interpretation from time to time after the decision of the Supreme Court
in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (AIR 1978 SC 597). Article 21 guarantees
fundamental right to life. Right to environment, free of danger of disease and infection
is inherent in it. Right to healthy environment is important attribute of right to live with
human dignity. The right to live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the
Constitution was first recognized in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra
vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 2187 (Popularly known as Dehradun Quarrying Case). It is
the first case of this kind in India, involving issues relating to environment and
ecological balance in which Supreme Court directed to stop the excavation (illegal
mining) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of
India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 the Supreme Court treated the right to live in pollution free
environment as a part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B.
This is on Article 48A of the Constitution
This case is known as the town planning case. In this case the Government of West Bengal
grants lease to the Taj Group for 4 acres land belonging to Calcutta Zoo logical Garden for the
establishment of 5 star hotels. This giving away of this 4 acre land to the Taj group challenged
by the PIL petition by the Secretary of the union of workmen of zoological garden and the live
member of zoo. Appeal was made in the Supreme court regarding the construction of this hotel
which led to the disturbance to animals in the zoo and disturb the ecology of the greenery and
the plants will to be disappeared as an adverse effect. Secretary expressed its opposition to the
proposal of construction of a hotel on land of zoo. The Committee’s objections were twofold:
A multi-storied building in the vicinity of the zoo will disturb the animals and the ecological
balance and will affect the bird migration on the land was already used for various purposes,
that is, fodder cultivation, burial ground for animals, hospital, operation theatre, quarantine
area, post-mortem room and nursery. According to the Committee , it is impossible to
accommodate these essential services within the campus of the main zoo. The allegations made
by the Managing Committee were first brought up before Minister for Metropolitan
Development who submitted a note to the Chief Minister pointing out the same issue.The Chief
Minister after bring the allegations stated that these facilities were necessary for the zoo. After
that , the Managing Committee reversed its earlier stand and agreed to the proposal on the
assurance that adjacent land and matching grants would be given to the zoo.On the Basis of all
the contention made by the appellant and respondent the court came to the conclusion that
allegations made by the appellant was baseless and the court dismissed the writ petition.
Do not leave any question. We have done everything. You know it all.
GOOD LUCK!!
Read the following content with the instructions .
1. M.C. MEHTA v. UOI
This we considering to be Oleum gas leakage case. This case is important for absolute liability
principle.
Shriram Food and Fertilizers, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mill Limited was a privately owned
company manufacturing caustic chlorine and oleum. “All units were set up in a single complex
situated in approximately 76 acres and they are surrounded by thickly populated colonies such
as Punjabi Bagh, West Patel Nagar, Karampura, Ashok Vihar, Tri Nagar and Shastri Nagar and
within a radius of 3 kilometres from this complex there is population of approximately 2,
00,000.” This by nature of the chemical processes involved was a polluting industry and was
creating a nuisance for the surrounding community of people. To address this issue a public
interest litigation (No. 12,739, 1985) was filed by environmentalist and lawyer, M.C. Mehta,
requesting the Supreme Court for the immediate closure and relocation of the industrial
complex.
On the 4th of December 1985, one month after the petition was filed and a day after the first
anniversary of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the worst industrial mishap in the history of mankind,
Oleum had leaked from the complex into the surrounding community resulting in one fatality
and many injuries.
Since the tragedy at Bhopal was fresh in the Public’s mind, there was a very strong outcry over
this incident and resulted in drastic steps by the administration. The Inspector of Factories and
the Assistant Commissioner of Factories issued orders to shut down the plant on the 7th and
24th of December respectively under the Factories Act (1948). Shriram responded by filing
writ petitions of itself (No. 26 of 1986) to nullify the two orders and interim opening of its
caustic chlorine plant manufacturing; glycerine, soap, hard oil, etc.On behalf of the gas leak
victims the Delhi Legal aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association filed for
compensation along with the original petition of M.C. Mehta.
Absolute Liability
An enterprise, which is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a
potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in
the surrounding areas owes an Absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure
that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous activity which
it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the
highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity the enterprise
must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to enterprise
to say that it has taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence
on its part." The Court also laid down that the measure of compensation payable within the
capacity of the enterprise, so that the same can have the deterrent effect. The Court held that
"We would also like to point out that the measure of compensation in the kind of eases referred
to must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such
, compensation must have a deterrent effect. The large and more prosperous the enterprise,
greater must be the amount of the compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account
of an accident in the carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the
enterprise.
Note: Strict liability rule of Rylands v. Fletcher was considered to be not applicable her in this
case. A principle stricter than strict liability was required.
2. RURAL LITIGATION ENTITLEMENT KENDRA v. STATE OF UP
This brought about the environmental jurisprudence has to right to life includes right to
healthy environment.
According to Article 21 of the constitution, “no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Article 21 has
received liberal interpretation from time to time after the decision of the Supreme Court
in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (AIR 1978 SC 597). Article 21 guarantees
fundamental right to life. Right to environment, free of danger of disease and infection
is inherent in it. Right to healthy environment is important attribute of right to live with
human dignity. The right to live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the
Constitution was first recognized in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra
vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 2187 (Popularly known as Dehradun Quarrying Case). It is
the first case of this kind in India, involving issues relating to environment and
ecological balance in which Supreme Court directed to stop the excavation (illegal
mining) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of
India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 the Supreme Court treated the right to live in pollution free
environment as a part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B.
This is on Article 48A of the Constitution
This case is known as the town planning case. In this case the Government of West Bengal
grants lease to the Taj Group for 4 acres land belonging to Calcutta Zoo logical Garden for the
establishment of 5 star hotels. This giving away of this 4 acre land to the Taj group challenged
by the PIL petition by the Secretary of the union of workmen of zoological garden and the live
member of zoo. Appeal was made in the Supreme court regarding the construction of this hotel
which led to the disturbance to animals in the zoo and disturb the ecology of the greenery and
the plants will to be disappeared as an adverse effect. Secretary expressed its opposition to the
proposal of construction of a hotel on land of zoo. The Committee’s objections were twofold:
A multi-storied building in the vicinity of the zoo will disturb the animals and the ecological
balance and will affect the bird migration on the land was already used for various purposes,
that is, fodder cultivation, burial ground for animals, hospital, operation theatre, quarantine
area, post-mortem room and nursery. According to the Committee , it is impossible to
accommodate these essential services within the campus of the main zoo. The allegations made
by the Managing Committee were first brought up before Minister for Metropolitan
Development who submitted a note to the Chief Minister pointing out the same issue.The Chief
Minister after bring the allegations stated that these facilities were necessary for the zoo. After
that , the Managing Committee reversed its earlier stand and agreed to the proposal on the
assurance that adjacent land and matching grants would be given to the zoo.On the Basis of all
the contention made by the appellant and respondent the court came to the conclusion that
allegations made by the appellant was baseless and the court dismissed the writ petition.
