Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Vineet Kumar Mathur vs Union Of India And Ors.

Pays/Territoire
Inde
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Nov 8, 1995
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Supreme Court of India
Juge
Jeevan Reddy.
Numéro de référence
1996 SCC (1) 119 JT 1995 (8) 27 1995 SCALE (6)241
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Eau, Environnement gén.
Mot clé
Dessalement de l'eau Eaux usées (source industrielle) Normes de qualité de l'eau Pollution des eaux douces/qualité des eaux douces Gestion des resources en eau douce
Résumé
A letter written by Sri Vineet Kumar Mathur pointing out the pollution caused in the river Gomti and its causes was treated as a writ petition by this Court and orders passed from time to time. The Court took note of the continued violation of the State, as well as industries by continuing to pollute water by discharging effluents and also in not setting up of common effluent treatment plants. The Court initially directed the officers of the State Pollution Board to visit the polluting industrial establishments and make a fresh inspection of the Effluent Treatment Plants installed in the said establishments and of their working. After inspection, if it was found that the treatment plants are deficient in any respect or the deficiency pointed out earlier still continues, the Board will give reasonable time for the industries to cure the deficiencies. However, the time so given should not extend beyond the deadline set up by the Court. The Board was directed to file its report within fifteen days. The Court further held that if the industries do not obtain the consent of the State Pollution Board for running their units, before 31-3-1993, the industries will stop functioning after 31-3-1993. Other Municipal Boards where there were no treatment plants, were directed to install the Effluent Treatment Plant and obtain a certificate from the State Pollution Board that the plant installed is up to the standard and its working is satisfactory. In the subsequent hearing, the Court held that running of the plant between 7-4-1993 and 11-4-1993 by Mohan Meakins prima facie amounts to violation of this Court’s order dated 15-1-1993. Accordingly, notices were issued to the Managing Director of Mohan Meakins, and to the Chief Executive Officer, to show cause why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of this Court. However, it was noticed that the Board had given its consent to the Company, which was not originally disclosed, to the Court. It was only after the Court imposed costs and the Court held two hearings that the Company disclosed that consent had been given. As the consent was given in violation of the Court order, the Court issued contempt notice against the Member Secretary of the Board. In his reply, the Member Secretary disclosed to the Court that he had issued consent under pressure. The Court held that in the circumstances the officers were in clear contempt of court and accepted their apology and made the violation a part of their service record.
Texte intégral
COU-156275.pdf