http://JUDIS.NIC.

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BAYER INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/09/1996

BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH, B.L HANSARIA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
HANSARIA. J.
Industrial growth, yes; but by exposing a large segment
of society to the risk of losing lives, no. This
apprehension is not imaginary. Bhopal disaster brought to
the knowledge of all what a tragedy can be caused by
chemical industries. In the wake of what happened there more
than a decade ago, industrialists engaged in production of
chemicals started thinking of taking precautionary and
protective measures to see that if worst wore to befall, how
could their financial liability be taken care of.
2. The aforesaid mental make-up led some leading chemical
manufacturers in the country, like Bayer India Limited, one
of the respondents herein, to approach the Bombay High Court
in a pending writ petition filed by some builders seeking
certain orders of the High Court. In one of the writ
petitions taken by the High Court for hearing, which was
numbered as 4497/90, the Court required the Municipal
Corporation to re-examine the building plans and to pass
appropriate orders keeping in view, inter alia, the
provisions of section 46 of the Maharasthra Regional and
Town Planning Act. The matter was brought to this Court by
the respondents contending, inter alia, that in the
sanctioned plan the area had been shown reserved for
industrial user. This Court permitted the respondents to
file a review petition before the High Court. On being so
approached, the High Court dismissed the intervention
application of the respondents and directed the Municipal
Corporation to permit construction. This order led the
respondents to approach this Court again by filing
Interlocutory Application in the disposed of SLP. This
Court, by an order passed on 24.2.1993, directed the High
Court to dispose of the review application and further
directed to maintain status quo, which prevented the
appellants tn carry on construction activity within one k.m.
radius from the factory premises. The High Court disposed of
the review application on 26.9.1994 by giving the following
directions :-
"(i) No additions or modifications
shall be permitted in respect of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
buildings that have been completed
or those were under construction as
on the data of stay order passed by
this Hon’ble Court on 8.1.1996.
(ii) In respect of schemes where
permission may have been granted
but no actual construction has been
commenced as on the date of this
Court’s order dated 8.1.1991 ,
prohibition in respect of a total
ban on further construction within
1 km. radius from the chemical
units shall apply.
(iii) Save and except in the
aforesaid cases, the stay order
passed by this Court on 8.1.1991
shall continue to the extent that
there shall be a prohibition in
respect of any further permissions
or for that further permissions or
for that matter construction within
1 k.m. radius from the chemical
factories.
(iv) The stay order shall stand
vacated only in those of the cases
as indicated where construction has
been commenced and was required to
be stopped by virtue of the stay of
this Hon’ble Court."These appeals
question the aforseaid directions
of the High Court.
3. The appeals were heard on a number of occasions and
being of the prima facie view that by giving aforesaid
immunity to the industrialists injustice has been caused to
the residents of the locality inasmuch as prohibition of
constructions within 1 k.m. radius like- Thane did adversely
affect the right to reside in the locality, leaving at the
same time the large number of inhabitants already residing
exposed to the risk mentioned above, it was thought by us
that if the industrialists wanted to safeguard their
interest in the event of some accident happening in their
factories, it was for them either to shift their factories
to such places where the residential area could be kept wide
apart from the factory premises. But then,the response of
the respondents to the first proposal being negative because
of the huge financial involvement we applied our mind as to
whether we could examine at our level the question of
relocation.
4. Respondents were heard on this aspect on many occasions
and in the written submissions filed on 2.9.1996 by Bayer
India. which can be taken as a representative stand of the
respondents, it has been stated relocation is not possible
logistically, financially or otherwise. The written
submission mentions about various aspects relating to
relocation at pages 16 to 20. It has been felt by us that we
have neither the expertise nor are in possession of various
information, which shall be required. to decide one way or
the so far as the question of relocation is concerned. In
such a situation what has appealed to us is to leave this
matter to be examined by an Authority which we would require
the Central Government to constitute, as visualized by
section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (the
Act). It is not necessary to deal at length as to what is
visualized by this Act and why ? This has been explained in
detail in a judgment delivered by one of us (Kuldip Singh,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
J.) on August 28, 1996 in Writ Petition (C) No.914 of 1991,
on behalf of a 3-Judge Bench. The concept of "sustainable
development", whose salient points have been noted in the
aforesaid Judgment, does call upon one and all to see to the
maintenance of balance between development and its
sustenance in future.
5. In the appeals at hand, we are confronted with a problem
which has more serious consequences and which touches the
core of Article 21 of the Constitution inasmuch as the very
lives of the inhabitants living around the factories in
question are in great jeopardy so much so that any probable
accident in the factories may see annihilation of large
number of inhabitants. May be the accident does not take
place, as has been submitted by Shri Jaitley appearing for
the respondents. There is, however, no ruling out of the
same altogether as Bhopal has shown. No risk can, therefore,
be taken. But then relocation does need a deeper probe
because of the various factors which would be required to be
gone into. Such an exercise can usefully be taken by an
Authority of which mention has been made above.
6. We, therefore, direct the constitution of an Authority
under section 3(3) of the Act by the Central Government, who
shall confer all the necessary powers under the Act on the
Authority, which shall be constituted within one month from
the receipt of this order. The Authority shall submit its
report to the Central Government within three months after
examining and deciding all the relevant issues including
those mentioned by us. This would be done by affording
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
Follow up actions shall be taken by all concerned as per the
recommendations of the Authority within reasonable time.
7. As the constitution and deliberation of the authority
would take times, and its ultimate result cannot be foreseen
at this stage, we have thought it fit to direct the Bombay
Municipal Corporation to proceed further with the plans
which had been submitted by the appellants, some of which
also came to be sanctioned. But then, as sanctioning in some
cases was about a decade back and as the scenario and
thinking on the subject has since then changed a lot, so
also the building bye-laws, we have thought it fit to direct
the Corporation to re-examine the question of grant of
sanction on the basis of the existing rules and bye laws.
The Corporation may proceed with this exercise, but it would
await the result of the report of the aforesaid Authority.
We have desired the Corporation to undertake this work at
this stage itself because the matter has been delayed
already and Authority’s deliberation would not be available
for quite some time.
8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the review petitions
filed before the High Court by the respondents are not
required to be kept alive and they would stand dismissed on
withdrawal, to which effect prayer was made before us. The
impugned directions of the High Court would automatically
lapse.
9. The appeals are disposed of with these directions. No
order as to costs.