2017 (10) TMI 1546 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenge against Monitoring Committee - case of appellant is that the industrial wastes generated by it come within the general definition of radioactive wastes under the Atomic Energy Act. Such wastes have been specifically excluded from the purview of the HW Rules - HELD THAT - The Monitoring Committee was constituted by the Apex Court with the object of ensuring that there was proper implementation of the terms regulating the handling and disposal of hazardous wastes by industrial units. The Monitoring Committee was constituted with the object of ensuring an effective implementation, having found that the statutory regulatory bodies had not been effective in achieving the said object. The consequence, as noticed by Ext.P2 order, has been an escalation in pollution at various parts of the country. It was taking note of the said alarming situation that the Monitoring Committee was directed to submit quarterly reports to the Apex Court itself, with a direction that no authority in the country shall entertain a challenge against any action of the Monitoring Committee. The Monitoring Committee was therefore not a mere fact finding body constituted by the Apex Court for ascertaining the factual scenario with respect to pollution. On the contrary, it was intended to effectuate and implement the control measures with the object of controlling the menace of pollution, effectively. Rehabilitation of the affected populace was also an aspect that was covered by Ext.P2 as well as Ext.R2(n) orders. The contention that the Monitoring Committee had exceeded its authority in directing the Pollution Control Board to implement the project of supplying drinking water to the affected people, cannot be accepted. In view of Ext.R2(n) order of the Supreme Court extracted above, we are also not in a position to entertain the challenge against the action of the Monitoring Committee alleging that it had exceeded its authority. Such a complaint ought to be made before the Apex Court itself. Any specified time limit could be stipulated, restricting such payments. This is for the reason that, going by the reports, the water sources in the area have been contaminated, the wells, ponds and the Periyar River have become polluted. The community has been deprived of all its natural water resources. They have been deprived of their water sources, as a result of the industrial activity in the area. The industries have been functioning for the past many decades. They are continuing to function to this date. The need of the community for potable drinking water is only legitimate. Therefore, it is necessary that they are supplied with potable drinking water, without any disruption. The industries are carrying on their activities. The appellant's unit has also been working throughout. Therefore, there is no justification for the contention that they shall not be directed to continue the payments - there are no infirmity in Ext.P12 or the judgment of the learned Single Judge, warranting an interference therewith. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 (HW Rules) to the appellant's industrial wastes.
2. Authority of the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes (Monitoring Committee) to direct actions related to the appellant's radioactive wastes.
3. Justification for the appellant's liability to bear recurring charges for supplying drinking water to local residents.
4. Allegations of statutory authority acting under dictation from the Monitoring Committee.
5. Duration and continuation of the appellant's financial obligations for drinking water supply.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of HW Rules to the Appellant's Industrial Wastes:

The appellant, a Government of India undertaking engaged in beach sand mining and mineral processing, argued that its industrial wastes are radioactive and fall under the purview of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, thereby excluding them from the HW Rules. The appellant contended that the necessary authorization for waste disposal was obtained from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, and thus, the HW Rules should not govern their waste disposal practices.

2. Authority of the Monitoring Committee:

The Monitoring Committee was constituted by the Supreme Court to ensure the effective implementation of directions issued in W.P(C) No. 657 of 1995. The Committee's mandate included overseeing the implementation of rehabilitation programs and monitoring the discharge of hazardous wastes. The appellant argued that the Committee had no authority to initiate actions related to their radioactive wastes, which are regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. However, the Court found that the Monitoring Committee's authority extended to ensuring compliance with environmental control measures and rehabilitation of affected communities, as per the Supreme Court's directives.

3. Justification for the Appellant's Liability:

The appellant objected to the recurring charges for supplying drinking water to local residents, arguing that they were not polluting the Periyar River and thus should not bear such costs. The respondents, including the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, contended that the acute pollution in the area was a combined effect of various industrial units, including the appellant. The Court upheld the "polluter pays" principle, justifying the financial burden on all industrial units in the area to avert pollution and provide clean drinking water to the affected communities.

4. Allegations of Statutory Authority Acting Under Dictation:

The appellant claimed that the 2nd respondent (Kerala State Pollution Control Board) acted under dictation from the Monitoring Committee without independent application of mind. The Court dismissed this contention, stating that the Monitoring Committee was constituted to ensure proper implementation of pollution control measures and that any challenge to its authority should be made before the Supreme Court.

5. Duration and Continuation of Financial Obligations:

The appellant argued that their financial contributions for drinking water supply should not continue indefinitely. The Court noted that the pollution had deprived the community of natural water resources, necessitating ongoing supply of potable water. The Court found no justification to limit the duration of the appellant's financial obligations, emphasizing the need for continuous supply of clean drinking water due to the persistent pollution caused by industrial activities.

Conclusion:

The Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appellant's writ petition and affirming the appellant's liability to bear recurring charges for supplying drinking water to local residents. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court finding no grounds to interfere with the Monitoring Committee's directions or the statutory authority's actions.