Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. 1. The State Human Rights Commission, 2. Association of Radio and Television Engineering Employees All India Radio, 3. S.P. Muthuraman, President, Tirunelveli District

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
Others
Date
Nov 4, 2004
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Judicature at Madras
Judge
Reddy
Kulasekaran
Reference number
(2004) INHCM 886
Language
English
Subject
Legal questions
Keyword
Jurisdictional competence
Abstract

The second respondent had given a complaint to the first respondent, the State Human Rights Commission, that a copper smelter plant emitted sulphur dioxide which settled down in the vicinity of the factory causing air pollution. As a result, the people of the vicinity including the employees of the second respondent were seriously affected. Apart from that there had been a complaint to the first respondent stating that a cement company was causing air pollution which affected the public and also agricultural activities in the locality. On the said complaint, the first respondent felt it necessary to hold an enquiry and issued a corresponding notice to the petitioner. The petitioner asked this court to quash the enquiry proceedings of the first respondent and direct the first respondent not to entertain any complaint relating to ’pollution’ in the State of Tamil Nadu. The court interpreted the national legal framework related to environment protection as well as to human rights. It emphasized that it was common ground that while the writ petitions were pending in respect of the same subject matter before this Court, the first respondent was prohibited from enquiring into the matter. The State Human Rights (Procedure) Regulations 1997 prohibited the Commission from enquiring into any matter, which was pending before any Court or Tribunal. The enquiry proceedings initiated by the first respondent would lead to multiplicity of cases and encourage unnecessary and unlimited litigation. The subject matter, for which the impugned notice had been issued by the Commission was pending before this Court and this Court also had issued directions from time to time to the petitioner to permit the said two Industries to function with necessary precautions and safety measures as per norms. In view of this, the impugned notices issued by the Commission were quashed. The writ petitions were ordered accordingly.

Full text
886.html