Polluter pays and precautionary principles supported relocation of polluting tanneries, environmental compensation, and worker protection measures.

Industrial units causing serious pollution cannot be allowed to remain at existing sites when evidence shows that effective effluent control there is not feasible; on that basis, the tanneries were required to relocate to the new leather complex. The objection that the proposed complex lay in a wetland was rejected because official survey material showed it was outside the wetland boundary. Applying the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, the polluters were made liable for environmental compensation, restoration measures and related fines, while directions were also issued to protect workers through continuity of employment and relocation-related benefits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Calcutta tanneries, operating in densely populated areas and discharging untreated effluents, could continue at their existing locations or were required to be relocated to the new leather complex; (ii) Whether the contention that the proposed leather complex fell within a wetland area could defeat the relocation plan; (iii) Whether the polluter pays principle, compensation for environmental damage, fines, and workmen-related reliefs were liable to be applied.

Issue (i): Whether the Calcutta tanneries, operating in densely populated areas and discharging untreated effluents, could continue at their existing locations or were required to be relocated to the new leather complex.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the tannery clusters had no effective drainage or treatment facilities, were discharging toxic effluents, and were operating in unhygienic conditions. The technical reports of NEERI and the State Pollution Control Board established that common effluent treatment plants could not be viably set up at the existing locations and that relocation was the only practicable solution. The statutory obligations under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 were also not being complied with by a large number of units.

Conclusion: The tanneries were required to relocate from their present sites to the new leather complex, and those refusing to relocate were not permitted to continue operating at the existing locations.

Issue (ii): Whether the contention that the proposed leather complex fell within a wetland area could defeat the relocation plan.

Analysis: The State produced the survey material, site plan, and official reports showing that the proposed complex lay outside the wetland boundary. No contrary material was produced by the tanneries. The objection was therefore unsupported on facts.

Conclusion: The wetland objection was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the polluter pays principle, compensation for environmental damage, fines, and workmen-related reliefs were liable to be applied.

Analysis: The decision applied the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle as part of Indian environmental law. Since the tanneries had caused pollution and environmental degradation, they were made liable to bear the cost of reversing the damage, to pay a pollution fine, and to contribute to the environmental restoration fund. The judgment also protected workmen by securing continuity of employment, shifting-related benefits, and retrenchment compensation where relocation did not occur, with reference to continuous service under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Conclusion: Environmental compensation, pollution fines, restoration measures, and workmen-protection directions were and binding on the tanneries and the State authorities.

Final Conclusion: The petition resulted in mandatory relocation of the polluting tanneries, rejection of the wetland objection, imposition of environmental liability on the polluters, and protective directions for workers, with further monitoring transferred to the Calcutta High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Industries causing serious environmental degradation cannot continue at existing sites when scientifically supported evidence shows that pollution control at those sites is not feasible; in such cases the polluter pays and precautionary principles justify relocation, compensation for environmental harm, and restoration measures.

---