1990 (8) TMI 404 - SC - Indian Laws

Petition Dismissed: Lack of Evidence in Environmental Pollution Case

The Court dismissed the petition alleging environmental pollution caused by industrial units in a green belt area, citing lack of prima facie evidence and ... - Issues involved: Environmental pollution caused by industrial units in green belt area, health hazards to population, alleged corruption, compliance with pollution control laws, misuse of legal process.Environmental Pollution and Health Hazards:The letter treated as a writ petition alleged environmental pollution caused by Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills and a refinery plant in a green belt area, affecting three villages and the Sarnath temple. Smoke, dust, and effluents emitted were said to be causing health hazards, affecting crops, spreading diseases, and impacting children's growth. Schools, nursing homes, and hospitals in the vicinity were also claimed to be adversely affected.Compliance with Pollution Control Laws:The petitioner sought directions to check pollution, alleging lack of safety measures by the industrial units' proprietor. The respondent claimed compliance with the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, with no complaints from any authority regarding violations. Orders from the Pollution Control Board indicated no instances of non-compliance.Alleged Corruption and Misuse of Legal Process:The respondent alleged a long-standing rivalry with the petitioner, portraying the petitioner as an antisocial element involved in blackmailing. Criminal proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner, and the respondent argued that the application was a misuse of legal process. The Court emphasized the need for genuine public interest in invoking Article 32 and cautioned against misuse of this legal safeguard.Judgment:The Court, after considering the facts, rivalry between the parties, and compliance with pollution control laws, found that there was no prima facie evidence of pollution or ecological imbalance attributable to the respondent. The Court highlighted the importance of Article 32 as a safeguard for fundamental rights but dismissed the petition, stating it lacked merit and was an abuse of the legal process. The Court emphasized the need to prevent misuse of legal avenues for personal vendettas and to protect genuine public interest cases from being overshadowed by such applications.