9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Definition and scope of "furnace" under the Bengal Smoke Nuisances Act. 2. Alleged infringement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 3. Alleged discrimination in the enforcement of the Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Definition and Scope of "Furnace" under the Bengal Smoke Nuisances Act The petitioner, a Limited Company engaged in manufacturing hosiery goods, challenged the applicability of the Bengal Smoke Nuisances Act, 1905, to its operations. The Company argued that its ovens, used for boiling and cleaning hosiery fabrics, did not constitute a "furnace" within the meaning of the Act. The Act defines "furnace" broadly to include any furnace or fireplace used for working engines by steam or for any other purpose, excluding only those used for burning the dead or for bona fide domestic purposes in a private house. The Court held that the definition was deliberately wide to encompass various uses of furnaces, reflecting the legislative intent to control smoke nuisances comprehensively. The Court rejected the argument that the definition was vague, emphasizing that the size or volume of smoke emitted was irrelevant for the Act's applicability, which focused on the nature of the furnace. Issue 2: Alleged Infringement of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution The petitioner contended that the Act's wide control over furnaces infringed on its fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court noted that the petitioner, being a corporation, was not entitled to fundamental rights under Article 19, which are available only to citizens. Nevertheless, the Court addressed the issue due to its general public importance. The Court found the restrictions imposed by the Act to be reasonable, given the significant public interest in controlling smoke nuisances. The historical context of the Act, aimed at addressing the growing smoke nuisance from industrial and domestic sources, justified the broad regulatory measures. The Court observed that the Act's restrictions were necessary to protect public health and were not unduly burdensome, even for small or cottage industries. Issue 3: Alleged Discrimination in the Enforcement of the Act The petitioner claimed discrimination, arguing that other hosiery mills in the same locality operated similar ovens without chimneys and without compliance with the Act. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's complaint but noted the lack of sufficient particulars to substantiate the claim of discrimination. The Court criticized the enforcement machinery, including the Directorate of Smoke Nuisances and the Chief Inspector, for their lack of awareness and inadequate enforcement of the Act. The Court emphasized the need for a more proactive and urgent approach to enforcing the Act's provisions to effectively control smoke nuisances. Conclusion: The Court discharged the rule and vacated any interim orders, with no order as to costs. The judgment underscored the broad and deliberate scope of the Bengal Smoke Nuisances Act, the reasonableness of its restrictions in the interest of public health, and the need for more effective enforcement to address the smoke nuisance problem comprehensively.
|
