TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Protecting River Ganga: Court Orders Tanneries to Comply with Pollution Control Measures</h1> <h3>M.C. MEHTA Versus U.O.I. & ORS</h3> The court, emphasizing the urgency of protecting the river Ganga from pollution, directed specific tanneries to establish primary treatment plants by ... - Issues Involved:1. Pollution of the river Ganga by trade effluents.2. Legal obligations under environmental laws.3. Responsibility of tanneries and government authorities in preventing pollution.4. Implementation of primary treatment plants by tanneries.Summary:1. Pollution of the river Ganga by trade effluents:The petitioner, an active social worker, filed a public interest litigation for a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to restrain respondents from letting out trade effluents into the river Ganga until necessary treatment plants are established. The petitioner highlighted the severe pollution caused by sewage and trade effluents from towns, cities, and industries along the river, emphasizing the urgent need to protect the river's cleanliness.2. Legal obligations under environmental laws:The judgment referenced Article 48-A and Article 51-A of the Constitution, which mandate the State and citizens to protect and improve the environment. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, were discussed, highlighting their provisions for preventing water pollution and empowering authorities to enforce environmental standards. Section 24 of the Water Act prohibits the discharge of polluting matter into streams or wells, while Section 3 of the Environment Act empowers the Central Government to take measures for environmental protection.3. Responsibility of tanneries and government authorities in preventing pollution:The court noted the failure of the State Board and the Central Government to take effective steps to prevent pollution by tanneries at Jajmau, Kanpur. The tanneries' effluents were causing considerable damage to the river and public health. The tanneries had formed an association to address pollution control but had not implemented adequate measures. The court emphasized the duty of the government and local authorities to enforce environmental laws and prevent pollution.4. Implementation of primary treatment plants by tanneries:The court directed specific tanneries to stop operations and discharge of trade effluents into the river Ganga unless they established primary treatment plants by October 1, 1987. Tanners who had already set up primary treatment plants were allowed to continue operations, provided they maintained the plants in sound working order. The court granted other tanneries time until March 31, 1988, to establish primary treatment plants, failing which they were to cease operations from April 1, 1988. The court ordered the Central Government, the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, and the District Magistrate, Kanpur, to enforce the order.Additional Remarks:Justice Singh added that the Ganga is a sacred and vital river for millions of people, and its pollution by industrial effluents is a grave concern. He stressed the importance of public cooperation in maintaining the river's purity and supported the court's directive to close non-compliant tanneries despite potential economic consequences, prioritizing public health and environmental protection.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
