Absolute liability for hazardous pollution and Polluter Pays Principle justified closure and environmental remediation costs recovery.

Hazardous chemical operations were treated as giving rise to absolute and non-delegable liability for environmental harm, so proof of due care did not relieve the polluting enterprise from compensating for damage to the village, soil and groundwater. The Polluter Pays Principle was applied to place the financial burden of prevention and remediation on the polluter rather than the public. The Court also accepted a broad constitutional and statutory basis to order closure of offending plants, removal of toxic sludge, restoration of the environment, and recovery of remediation costs from the industry for use in environmental repair.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents carrying on hazardous chemical operations were absolutely liable to compensate for and remedy the environmental damage caused to the village, soil and groundwater; (ii) Whether the Court could direct closure of the offending plants and require recovery and application of the cost of remedial measures by the Central Government under the environmental statutes and Article 32.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents carrying on hazardous chemical operations were absolutely liable to compensate for and remedy the environmental damage caused to the village, soil and groundwater.

Analysis: The hazardous manufacture of H acid, the discharge of untreated effluents, the dumping and concealment of toxic sludge, and the continuing contamination of wells and aquifers were established by repeated inspections and expert reports. The principle applied was that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community, and liability is not avoided by proving due care. The environmental harm was also held to attract the Polluter Pays Principle, under which the financial burden of prevention and remediation must fall on the polluter rather than the public.

Conclusion: The respondents were held absolutely liable for the environmental damage and bound to bear the cost of remedial action.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court could direct closure of the offending plants and require recovery and application of the cost of remedial measures by the Central Government under the environmental statutes and Article 32.

Analysis: The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable to enforce the right to life of the affected villagers and to compel public authorities to perform their statutory duties. The powers under the environmental enactments were construed broadly to include directions for closure, removal of sludge, restoration of the environment, and recovery of the cost of remedial measures from the offending industry. In the circumstances of persistent statutory violations and non-compliance with prior orders, closure of the plants was considered necessary, while the Central Government was directed to determine and recover the remediation cost and use it for environmental restoration.

Conclusion: The Court directed closure of the offending plants and authorised determination and recovery of remediation costs from the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The decision enforced environmental protection through constitutional remedies, imposed strict responsibility on the polluting industries, and required restoration of the affected area at the polluters' expense.

Ratio Decidendi: A person or enterprise carrying on a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable for the resulting environmental harm, and the State may be directed under environmental law to recover the cost of restoration from the polluter and secure remediation of the damage caused.

---