Case study: Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar and ors.

By Mansi Aggarwal 5 Minutes Read

Citation: 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCC (1) 598

Date of Judgement: 09^th January, 1991

Bench: J. Singh K. N., J. Ojha N. D.  

Facts:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition by way of public interest litigation alleging that the respondents, West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) were polluting the river Bokaro by discharging surplus waste in the form of sludge/slurry as effluent from their washeries into the river making the water unfit for drinking and irrigation purposes.

2. The petitioner prayed for directions to the respondents to take immediate steps prohibiting the pollution of the river and to take legal action against TISCO under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The petitioner also claimed interim relief from this Court that he should be permitted to collect sludge/slurry flowing out of washeries of the respondents.

3. Bihar State Pollution Board asserted that directions have been issued to the Bokaro Collieries to take effective steps for improving the quality of the effluent going into the river Bokaro and that the TISCO Company has been granted permission to discharge their effluents from their outlets in accordance with sections 25 and 26 of the Water Act, 1974.

Issues:

1. Whether the petitioner could file plea by way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?

2. Whether the water of the river Bokaro is polluted by the discharge of sludge/slurry from the washeries of the Respondent’s Company?

Judgement:

It was held that Art 32 of the Indian Constitution is designed for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Supreme Court; it is an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the rights of a citizen. The Right to live is a fundamental right guaranteed under Art 21 of the Constitution and guarantees a citizen to live in pollution-free water and air. A person cannot invoke Public Interest Litigation to satisfy his personal grudge. The present petition is not maintainable as it was not filed in the public interest and was the result of a personal grudge and for these reasons, the plea was dismissed and it was directed that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000 as costs.

Key Points discussed:

1. Whether the petitioner could file plea by way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?

No,

The Court in the present case held that the petition was not filed keeping in view the public interest rather it is filed for self-interest. The petitioner has been purchasing slurry from the respondents for the last several years. With the passage of time, he wanted more and more slurry but the Company refused to accept his request. Since the respondent company refused to sell additional slurry, he developed a grudge against the company.

2. Whether the water of the river Bokaro is polluted by the discharge of sludge/slurry from the washeries of the Respondent’s Company?

No,

The Bihar Pollution Control Board has taken all the necessary steps to prevent pollution in the Bokaro river. The Tata Iron & Steel Co. has been granted sanction from the Board for discharging effluents from their outlets under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

Mansi Aggarwal