Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India (SC)
BS541066
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- Altamas Kabir and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
I.A. Nos. 23, 40, 42, 43, 55, 56 & 57 in Writ Petition (C) No. 657 of 1995 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 155 of 2005, SLP(C) No. 16175 of 1997 and Civil Appeal No. 7660 of 1997. D/d.
3.5.2012.
Research Foundation for Science - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. - Respondent
For the Appearing Parties :- Mr. Sanjay Parikh, AOR, Ms. Mamta Saxena, Mr. A.N. Singh, Ms. Bushra Praveena, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, AOR, Mr. P.P. Malhotra, A.S.G., Mr. Ashok Bhan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, AOR, Mr. Manik Karanjawala, AOR, Mr. K.B. Rohtagi, AOR, Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR, Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR, Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR, Mr. Suraj Singh, Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR, Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, AOR, Mr. Sapan Biswajit Meitei, Mr. Techi Poto, Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR, Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Mr. Amit Kumar, AOR, Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR, Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, AOR, Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR, Mr. Upendra Mishra, M/s. Sinha & Das, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, AOR, Ms. Vartika Sahay Walia, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, AOR, Mr. Janaranjan Das, AOR, Mr. Ejaj Maqbool, AOR, Ms. Bina Gupta, AOR, Ms. S. Janani, AOR, Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR, Mr. Atishi Dipankar, AOR, Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AOR, Mr. P.S. Sudheer, AOR, Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, AOR, Mr. Prabal Bagchi, Mr. Mukesh Verma, Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR, Mrs. Jayashree Wad, Mr. Ashish Wad, Ms. Tamali Wad, Ms. Kanika, M/s. J.S. Wad & Co., Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR, Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR, Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, AOR, Mr. E.C. Agrawal, AOR, Mr. R. Satish, AOR, Mr. Jay Savla, AOR, Mr. A. Raghunath, AOR, Mr. Ravindra Kumar, AOR, Mr. Mohan Prasaran, A.S.G., Mr. Sunil Roy, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. Asha G. Nair, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Mr. D.S. Mahra, AOR, Mr. T.S. Doabial, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Mr. D.S. Mahra, AOR, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR, Mr. Pragyan P. Sharma, Mr. Rupesh Gupta, Ms. Mandakini Sharma, Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR, Mr. S. Muthu Krishnan, Mr. Gautam Dhamija, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR, Mr. D.N. Mishra, AOR, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, AOR, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Mr. Praburamasubramanian, Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR, Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR, Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, AOR, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR, Ms. Asha G. Nair, AOR, Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, Mr. Milind Kumar, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Mr. M.J. Paul, AOR, Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR, Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv., Mr. Satyabrata Panda, Mr. Rutwik Panda, AOR, Mrs. Nandini Gore, AOR, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR, Ms. Jesal, Ms. Rojalin Pradhan, Ms. Karuna Nandy, Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR, Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR, Mr. Raj Panjwani, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Dinesh Chandra Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. C. Mukund, Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, Mr. Pankaj Jain, Mr. P.V. Saravana Raja, Mr. Bijoy Kumar Jain, AOR, Mr. Chirag Jamwal, Mr. Manish Bishnoi, M/o Customs & Mr. Arijit Prasad, Mr. T.A. Khan, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates.
A. Environment Protection and Pollution Control - Hazardous or Industrial Materials/Waste - Ship-breaking - Supply of fresh drinking water to overground pipelines to affected areas - Directions issued to compliance with previous orders.
[Para ]
B. Environment Protection and Pollution Control - Hazardous or Industrial Materials/Waste - Ship-breaking - A separate interlocutory application filed in which it has indicated that a foreign ship, alleged to be contaminated, said to have entered into Indian waters, though not yet allowed to berth in any Indian port without taking proper steps for decontamination on the part of export - Union of India and Ministry of Shipping to file response on steps being taken to prevent ship berthing in any of ports in India without following conditions indicated in Basel Convention.
[Para ]
ORDER
1. In response to the prayers made in I.A. No.43 of 2007, filed by one Mr. Kishore R. Shah, a Member of the Citizen Council, Chala - Vapi, we had directed the States of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat to file affidavits with regard to the supply of fresh drinking water to the affected areas. As far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned senior Standing Counsel for the State of Gujarat, has filed an affidavit and has also indicated that steps have already been taken to supply fresh drinking water in the areas, in and around Wapi and Ankleshwar. Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, may seek instructions in regard to the statements made in the said affidavit and report back to us.
2. As far as Bhopal is concerned, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, affirmed by the City Engineer of the Municipal Corporation of Bhopal, stating that steps have been taken in the fourteen localities, indicated by the applicant and the Bhopal Group for Information and Action, for supplying drinking water by overground pipelines to the inhabitants of the said fourteen localities.
3. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, has submitted that while the main pipelines have been laid, a decision has also been taken by the Municipality to provide each individual household with a separate tap connection and that steps are being taken in that regard. Ms. Makhija has also submitted that the matter is in the process of execution and will take some time to complete.
4. Ms. Karuna Nundy, learned counsel appearing for Bhopal Group for Information and Action, submits that the said Non-Governmental Organisation has been working with the municipal authorities, not only in identifying the areas, but also in trying to expedite the work of laying down the pipelines for supply of fresh drinking water. She also submits that though the work is being undertaken, it is progressing at a very slow pace. Ms. Nundy has also pointed out certain discrepancies indicated in the Chart, which has been made Annexure A-2 to the affidavit filed on behalf of the NGO.
5. Since, admittedly, steps are being taken to provide the fourteen identified areas and the four additional areas, which have been subsequently identified, with fresh drinking water through pipelines, the only order that we are inclined to pass today is for expedition of the work. Although, we are informed that the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee, which had earlier been appointed, has almost become defunct, as also the local Committees appointed by it in different areas, we are of the view that there should be a Monitoring Committee to oversee the part of the work, which is now being undertaken by the Bhopal Municipality for providing fresh drinking water to the eighteen affected areas near the Plant.
6. Accordingly, we constitute a Committee for the aforesaid purpose, with the Executive Chairman of the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority as the Chairperson of the Committee, which will include (1) The Commissioner, Gas Relief and Rehabilitation, (2) The Commissioner, Bhopal Municipality, (3) The Executive Engineer, Bhopal Municipal Corporation, (4) The Member Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh State Pollution Control Board, (5) a member from the Bhopal Group for Information and Action, a person nominated by the Research Foundation for Science, the petitioner in the writ petition itself, and the Member Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Committee.
7. The other Non-Governmental Organisations, who have been assisting in the process of providing fresh drinking water or other activities to provide relief for the people of the different areas, may continue to assist the Committee in the work of implementing the scheme for providing fresh drinking water to the people of the various localities indicated.
8. The entire exercise should be completed within three months from the date of communication of this order to the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority and the Members of the Committee and both the State Government and the Bhopal Municipal Corporation, shall ensure that the work does not suffer or is not obstructed on account of inadequate or insufficient funds.
9. Let copies of this order be made available to Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for the Research Foundation for Science, who is requested to communicate the same to all the concerned authorities and each of the Members of the aforesaid Committee. The Committee, thus appointed, is to submit its report to this Court, with regard to the work undertaken in terms of this order, on 13th August, 2012, when I.A. No. 43 of 2007, along with the other connected applications, are to be listed for further consideration.
10. Mr. Sanjay Parikh also submitted that a separate interlocutory application has been filed, which is yet to be numbered, in which it has been indicated that a foreign ship, which is alleged to be contaminated, has entered into Indian Waters, though, it has not yet been allowed to berth in any of the ports, without taking proper steps for decontamination in the port of export. A copy has been provided to Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India and Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel, who submits that he is appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. Both, Mr. Bhan and Mr. Doabia, are requested to take instructions on the statements made in the interlocutory application and to inform this Court as to the steps being taken to prevent the ship berthing in any of the ports in India, without following the conditions indicated in the Basel Convention.
11. The respondents in the interlocutory application will be entitled to file their respective counter affidavits to the same, within six weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. Let this interlocutory application, as well as the other connected interlocutory applications, be listed on 13th August, 2012, also.
12. The Convenience File, which had been filed on behalf of the alleged contemnors in the contempt petition filed, be tagged with I.A. No. 23 of 2007.
.