FROM THE CHAIRMAN’S DESKdslsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/NK(July-Sept.09).pdf · The aftermath of the Bhopal Gas Leak tragedy still remains the most important trigger for the

FROM THE CHAIRMAN’S DESK

Given the climate change that we are experiencing, it is necessary

for us to pay greater attention to the environment. This includes greater

attention not only to issues concerning water and air but also issues

concerning wildlife, forests etc. It is with this in mind that the Delhi Legal

Services Authority has dedicated this issue of Nyaya Kiran to

environmental matters which are slowly but surely becoming a part of

mainstream litigation in the country.

All of us are aware that public interest litigation is largely dominated

by environment related issues. Among the first few cases in this genre

pertained to limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie Hills -Rural Litigationand Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., (1985) 2 SCC 431 and its

follow-up. This case, and others that followed, led to setting up of Green

Benches in various High Courts and the enactment of statutes such as

the National Environment Tribunals Act, 1995. The development of

environmental jurisprudence is still continuing and it has contributed

immensely to new concepts in India including that of a continuing

mandamus.

However, what we need to appreciate is that the superior Courts

cannot be expected to deal with every environment related issue.

Ultimately, it is for the district judiciary to gear itself up not only in terms

of knowledge and expertise but also in terms of adopting pro-active

measures to deal with such matters. In this context, it is worth recalling

the case of Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardichan and others,(1980) 4 SCC 162 which began with a complaint having been made to

the Special Executive Magistrate under Section 133 of the CrPC and

ultimately his decision being affirmed by the Supreme Court.

It is hoped that this issue of Nyaya Kiran will give enough food for

thought to readers that the environment is a matter of global concern

and our pro-active involvement is necessary and will, hopefully, bring

about some positive changes in attitude and responses.

(Madan B. Lokur)

NYAYA KIRAN

VOLUME - III ISSUE - III JULY - SEPT., 2009

DELHI LEGALSERVICES AUTHORITY

Patron – in – ChiefHon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak MisraChief Justice, High Court of Delhi

Executive ChairmanHon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. LokurJudge, High Court of Delhi

Chairman, Delhi High Court LegalServices CommitteeHon’ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit SenJudge, High Court of Delhi

Member SecretaryMs. Asha MenonAddl. District & Sessions Judge

Address :Delhi Legal Services AuthorityCentral Office, Pre-fab BuildingPatiala House CourtsNew Delhi - 110 001Tel. No. 23384638, 23383014Tele Fax No. 23387267

Permanent Legal Services ClinicRoom No. 54 to 57Shaheed Bhagat Singh PlaceGole Market, New DelhiTel. No. 23341111Fax No. 23342222Toll Free No. 12525

Website : www.dlsa.nic.inE-mail : [email protected]

Editorial CommitteeChairmanHon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. LokurJudge, High Court of Delhi

MemberHon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. DhingraJudge, High Court of Delhi

MemberHon’ble Ms. Justice Reva KhetrapalJudge, High Court of Delhi

MemberHon’ble Dr. Justice S. MuralidharJudge, High Court of Delhi

MemberHon’ble Ms. Justice Hima KohliJudge, High Court of Delhi

EditorMs. Asha MenonMember SecretaryDelhi Legal Services Authority

ARTICLE SECTION

1. The Role Played by the Higher Judiciary inProtecting the Environment

- Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. G. BalakrishnanChief Justice of India

2. The Need for Effective Grievance RedressalMechanism for Environmental Issues

- Mr. Ritwick Dutta, AdvocateSupreme Court of India

3. The Polluters Say They Will Not Pay Downto Earth

- Ms. Sunita Narain, DirectorCentre for Science and Environment

JUDGMENT SECTION

1. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors.[Writ Petition (Civil) 4677 of 1985]

2. Praveen Mittal vs. Department of Environment,Govt. of NCT, Delhi[W.P. (C) 8120/09]

3. Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Associationvs. Noyyal River Ayacutdars ProtectionAssociation and Ors.

POETRY SECTION

1. /kjrh dSls gk¡Q jgh gS& Jh ohjsUnz xks;y] vfrfjDr ftyk ,oa l=

U;k;k/kh’k] jksfg.kh ftyk U;k;ky;] fnYyh

2. euhIykaV& Jh xkSre euu] egkuxj naMkf/kdkjh@ifj;kstuk

vf/kdkjh] fnYyh fof/kd lsok,a izkf/kdj.k

3. izd`fr dh iqdkj& Jherh ehuk{kh ’kekZ] fgUnh vuqoknd]

fnYyh fof/kd lsok,a izkf/kdj.k

4. i;kZoj.k& Jherh xqjizhr dkSj] ofj"B vk’kqfyfid]

fnYyh fof/kd lsok,a izkf/kdj.k

LEGAL AID PROGRAMMES

PRESS CLIPPING SECTION

STATISTICAL INFORMATION

INDEXPage No.

1

7

10

15

27

37

47

50

51

52

53

61

69

Nyaya Kiran July-September, 2009

1

ARTICLE SECTION

THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE HIGHER JUDICIARYIN PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan1

There is of course a need for a comprehensive analysis of how law

operates as an instrument of environmental protection. In recent years,

there has been a sustained focus on the role played by India’s higher

judiciary in devising and monitoring the implementation of measures for

pollution control and the conservation of forests and wildlife. Many of

these judicial interventions have been triggered by the persistent

incoherence in policy-making as well as the lack of capacity-building

amongst the executive agencies. Devices such as Public Interest

Litigation (PIL) have been prominently relied upon to tackle environmental

problems, and this approach has its supporters as well as critics.

In our country, there are several vocal NGO’s and public-spirited

individuals who have moved the courts to seek reliefs against numerous

problems such as those created by unchecked vehicular and industrial

pollution,2 negligence in management of solid waste,3 construction of

large projects and increasing deforestation4. In addressing such

problems, there is a need to draw a balance between environmental

concerns and competing developmental needs such as those of

generating employment and wealth.

1The then Chief Justice of IndiaThis note is based on an address delivered at the Inauguration of the Kerala Chapter of theAsia-Pacific Jurist Association (APJA) at the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam on August 1,2009. The author acknowledges the research assistance provided by Sidharth Chauhan (LawClerk to Hon’ble CJI since July 2008)2See: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 206; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC12 – orders were given for the phasing out of old vehicles, permitting only those vehicles whichconformed to Euro II norms at the time.3Almitra Patel v. Union of India, W.P. No. 88 of 1996 (Continuing mandamus)4T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, W.P. No. 202 of 1995 (Continuing mandamus)


2

All of us are well aware of how the device of Public Interest Litigation

(PIL) was devised by our Supreme Court. In order to improve access to

justice for poor and disadvantaged sections, the traditional rules of ‘locus

standi’ were diluted and a practice was initiated whereby public-spirited

individuals could approach the court on behalf of such sections. Even

though there has been considerable debate about the use and misuse

of PILs, I must highlight the procedural flexibility and innovative remedies

that have come to be associated with this form of litigation.

Instead of an adversarial setting where the judge relies on the

counsels to produce evidence and argue their cases, the PIL cases are

characterised by a collaborative problem-solving approach. Acting either

at the instance of petitioners or on their own, the Supreme Court has

invoked Article 32 of the Constitution to grant interim remedies such as

stay orders and injunctions to restrain harmful activities in many cases.

Reliance has also been placed on the power to do complete justice

under Article 142 to issue detailed guidelines to executive agencies and

private parties for ensuring the implementation of the various

environmental statutes5 and judicial directions. Beginning with the RatlamMunicipality case6 where the Supreme Court directed a local body to

make proper drainage provisions there have been numerous cases

where such positive directions have been given.7

The concept of a ‘continuing mandamus’ has been used to monitor

the implementation of orders by seeking frequent reports from executive

agencies on the progress made in the same. The adjudication and

monitoring of environmental cases has also benefited from the inputs of

fact-finding commissions and expert committees which are constituted

to examine a particular environmental problem. In several cases, the

5The principal environmental statutes are: The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972; The ForestConservation Act, 1980; The Environmental Protection Act, 1986; Water (Prevention and Controlof Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 19816Municipal Council Ratlam v. Vardichan, (1980) 4 SCC 1627See generally: Harish Salve, ‘Justice between generations: Environment and Social Justice’,Chapter 18 in B.N. Kirpal et. al.(eds.), Supreme but not Infallible- Essays in Honour of theSupreme Court of India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002) at p. 360-380


3

Court also relies on the services of the leading members of the bar who

render assistance in their capacity as ‘amicus curiae’. The involvement

of expert committees and amicus curiae is needed to gain an accurate

understanding of an environmental problem as well as to explore feasible

solutions.8 For instance, court-appointed committees have conducted

substantial empirical research and provided valuable insights in cases

that have dealt with vehicular pollution, solid waste management and

forest conservation.

The aftermath of the Bhopal Gas Leak tragedy still remains the most

important trigger for the evolution of environmental jurisprudence in India.

Noted academic Upendra Baxi has observed that the Bhopal Gas Leak

involved two disasters, one being the huge loss of life and secondly the

absence of an effective legal framework for the purpose of providing

redress to those affected by the same. It was in this setting, that the

Supreme Court evolved the doctrine of ‘absolute liability’9 which marked

a clear departure from the reliance on traditional tort law concepts such

as ‘public nuisance’ and ‘strict liability’ (rule developed in Rylands v.

Fletcher). It was ruled that the occupiers of premises where hazardous

activities were undertaken, would be liable to third parties for damage

caused as a result of such activities, irrespective of any fault being shown

on their part. The articulation of the ‘absolute liability’ doctrine was soon

followed by the recognition of the ‘polluter-pays principle’ which had gained

importance at international discussions.

This development proved to be a precursor for subsequent decisions

which recognised principles such as ‘sustainable development’ and ‘inter-

generational equity’. In comparison to other jurisdictions, the relatively

early absorption of these ideas has shaped the pro-active stand of our

judiciary with regard to environmental problems. The right to life and

8For an overview of these innovative fact-finding methods and remedies, see: M.K. Ramesh,‘Environmental Justice – Courts and Beyond’, Vol. 3(1) Indian Journal of Environmental Law 20-37 (June 2002)9The concept of ‘absolute liability’ was articulated in the Oleum Gas Leak Case, reported asM.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395


4

liberty under Article 21 was creatively interpreted to include a ‘right to

clean air and water’ as well as the ‘right to a clean environment’. Some

of the most commonly cited cases from this phase are those which

resulted in the re-location of hazardous industries from the National

Capital Territory (NCT) and the closure of polluting foundries in the

proximity of the Taj Mahal in Agra.

Most of us are also familiar with the developments that followed the

Supreme Court’s order in 1998 which required all buses in Delhi to

convert to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). At the time, there was

significant criticism of this order on the ground that it would be too costly

for both the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and private-operators to

buy CNG vehicles, thereby affecting the large number of people who

depend on public transport. As the deadline for implementation drew

close in 2002, there was some inconvenience caused to the general

public on account of limited CNG supplies – but in the long-run the

measure has succeeded in reducing the air-pollution levels. This only

goes to show that sometimes judges must make unpopular decisions

in order to advance the long-term interest in protecting the right to a

clean environment.10

However, the judicial approach needs to be a little more nuanced

when it comes to developmental projects that may lead to displacement

of local communities from their traditional lands. While the media has

focused on the controversial Sardar Sarovar Dam Project,11 we must

remember that the judiciary has consistently invoked the ‘precautionary

principle’ in respect of developmental activities that may harm the

environment and the local communities. While policy-making in this

regard has also evolved with the requirement of Environmental Impact

10See generally: Armin Rosencranz and Michael Jackson, ‘The Delhi Pollution case: The SupremeCourt of India and the limits of judicial power’, Vol. 28 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 223-249 (2003)11See generally: Balakrishnan Rajagopal, ‘Limits of law in counter-hegemonic globalisation –TheIndian Supreme Court and the Narmada Valley Struggle’, Centre for Studies in Law andGovernance, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi [Working Paper Series, May 2004]


5

Assessment (EIA) for all projects, judicial oversight is still needed to

ensure that the same is conducted in a transparent and consultative

manner. It has been clearly laid down that the onus is on the developers

to take preventive steps for mitigating the environmental damage that

may result from the construction of projects and buildings.

The impact on the local communities can only be accurately

assessed if their concerns are effectively heard through methods such

as ‘Public hearings’. However, several independent studies have

demonstrated the lack of transparency and inclusiveness in such

hearings. In some cases, the ‘Public hearings’ are not adequately notified

and even held in remote locations, where the concerned stakeholders

do not get a say. The picture is even more complicated when business

interests lobby with local officials to ensure that genuine concerns are

not voiced. In such situations, the courts are again called on to protect

the interests of the local communities who are displaced or adversely

affected by developmental projects. In the past, judicial directions for

the payment of compensation and rehabilitation have often been the

right antidote for governmental apathy.

There have also been some theoretical criticisms of the growing

environmental jurisprudence in our country. Many commentators have

argued that frequent judicial interventions in this area have reduced the

incentive for executive agencies to improve their functioning.12 It is also

urged that there seems to be a certain clique of individuals who havecome to specialise in filing frivolous PIL’s. It is further alleged that thedecisions given in these cases depend too much on the subjectivesensibilities of the benches which hear them and hence result in a lackof consistency in the long-run. Furthermore, the frequent reliance onwrit jurisdiction reduces the importance of ordinary remedies such asthose of filing ‘representative suits’ (under the Code of Civil Procedure)and claiming damages for torts such as ‘public nuisance’.13

12For instance, refer: Shyam Divan, ‘A mistake of judgment’, Down to Earth, April 200213See: Lavanya Rajamani, ‘Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring issues ofaccess, participation, equity, effectiveness and sustainability’, 19 Journal of EnvironmentalLaw 293-321 (2007)


6

While all of these criticisms merit a meaningful debate, my shortresponse for now is based on a simple understanding of the judicialrole. We must realise that the traditional notion of legal rights in thecommon-law tradition was mostly oriented around the idea of privateproperty. This is so because individuals are especially vigilant aboutprotecting their property rights and litigation is an effective means ofsecuring them. However, this rationale cannot be applied in the contextof environmental protection – since the ‘right to a clean environment’ is apublic good. Since individuals are less inclined to mobilize themselvesto protect such public goods, the onus is placed on the government andthe legal system to do the same. This philosophy of ‘public trust’ findsplace in our constitutional commitments and our judiciary is committedto upholding the same. This is precisely why judges are frequently calledon to weigh individual interests on the scales of social justice. Theconservation of forests and wildlife, as well as the reduction of pollution-levels are vital components of such considerations of social justice. It ison account of these considerations that the higher judiciary must continueto play a vigorous role in the domain of environmental protection.

✥ ✥ ✥ ✥ ✥


7

THE NEED FOR EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCEREDRESSAL MECHANISM FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Mr. Ritwick Dutta*

India is Signatory to the Rio Declaration on Environment and

Development, 1992. Principle 10 of the declaration reads :

Environmental issues are best handled withparticipation of all concerned citizens, at therelevant level. At the national level, each individualshall have appropriate access to informationconcerning the environment that is held by publicauthorities, including information on hazardousmaterials and activities in their communities, andthe opportunity to participate in decision-makingprocesses. States shall facilitate and encouragepublic awareness and participation by makinginformation widely available. Effective access tojudicial and administrative proceedings,including redress and remedy, shall beprovided.

The last sentences of Principle 10 is very crucial. After almost two

decades of the Rio Declaration, we need to ask ourselves: Do we have

effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings so far as

environmental issues are concerned ?

Two legislations are relevant in this context: The National Environment

Tribunal Act, 1995 (‘NETA’ for short) and the National Environment

Appellate Authority Act, 1997 (‘NEAA’ for short). The mandate of the two

grievance redressal mechanisms are different: NETA is for redressal of

*Advocate, Supreme Court of India


8

grievance for victims of hazardous activities specifically to provide for

strict liability for damages arising out of any accidents occurring while

handling any hazardous substances, while NEAA is for challenging those

projects granted environmental clearances under the Environment Impact

Assessment Notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act,

1986. However, for reasons best known to the Government of India,

despite the lapse of 15 year since the NETA bill became a law, NETA is

yet to be set up. One of the main objective of NETA was to serve as a

specialized forum to deal with a Bhopal Gas Disaster like situation or

even of lesser dimension. The moot question which arises is why bother

passing a law, when there is no intention to make it operational ?

The case of the NEAA is no different: although setup in 1997 with

retired Supreme Court Judge Justice Venkatachala as its first

Chairperson, it has been without a chairperson for the last 10 years.

Today the five member Authority has just a single member hearing both

legal and technical aspects relating to appeals filed before it. The

Supreme Court of India in numerous decisions had emphasized the

need for having both Judicial as well as Technical persons [M. C MehtaVs Union of India (1986 (2) SCC 176), Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum V

Union of India (1996 (5) SCC 647), A. P Pollution Control Board Vs ProfM. V Nayudu (1999 (1) SCALE 140].

There were clear direction by the Delhi High Court in 2005 as well as

2009 [Vimal Bhai Vs Union of India W.P No. 17682/2005] for appointment

of Judicial and technical members of the NEAA. It is yet to be complied

by the Government of India. The implications of the same is not just a

denial of justice but also serious environmental consequences. Each

day, a minimum of five projects are granted environmental clearances

by the Ministry of Environment and Forests as well as the state

Government. These projects are most often approved based on

inadequate Public consultation, poor quality impact assessment studies

and very little application of mind on the part of the decision makers.

The challenge to the decision lies before the NEAA. Challenges to


9

Environmental Clearances are generally done by the affected

communities mostly tribals and peasants who often have limited

resources to litigate and understand the complexities of the law.

Unfortunately, given the fact that the NEAA has not been fully constituted

since the year 2000, it has dismissed all Appeals except two in the last

13 years of its functioning. Clearly, it is a record unparalleled so far as

any Tribunal or Court is concerned.

It is clear from the events of the last 15 years, that despite India

being a signatory to Principle 10 of Rio, India has paid lip service to the

same. Despite passing legislations for setting up the Environmental

Tribunals it has done precise little to actually make it functional. Infact,

all its actions have been directed to ensure that these Tribunals exist

only on paper. One shocking instance is the NEAA itself. Despite the

NEAA Act,1997 clearly requires that the Chairperson of the NEAA should

be a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of High Court,

the Rules framed under the Act provides that the Chairperson shall be

given the rank and pay of a Secretary to the Government of India. It is no

wonder that every single Judge who was approached by the Government

of India to serve as chairperson of NEAA declined to accept the post. Yet

no effort was made to amend the Rules.

Today as Parliament is debating the National Green Tribunal Bill,

2009 which is set to replace the NEAA and the never setup NETA one

wonders if the National Green Tribunal will also meet the same fate as

the earlier environmental tribunals. As the experience of the last fifteen

years has show, there are clear reasons to be pessimistic.

✥ ✥ ✥ ✥ ✥


10

THE POLLUTERS SAY THEY WILL NOT PAYDOWN TO EARTH

Ms. Sunita Narain*

The top-billed Copenhagen climate conference ended with nothing

more than a disgraced accord, now rejected. We know what the

conference was supposed to agree upon: drastic emission reduction

targets by industrialized countries and actions supported by finance and

technology by emerging countries such as India. After two years of

intense negotiations and heightened concerns related to the growing

impacts of climate change, the world was supposed to be ready to sign

a deal to save the planet. That didn’t happen. Worse, the world showed

it was ready for a slugfest, with top leaders participating in dirty, deceitful

and underhand moves to get an accord which was neither effective nor

fair. They stooped low, but did not conquer, because the rest of the world

showed them might was not right.

This is the underbelly of Copenhagen we must understand. It is

apparent the rich world has taken off its gloves —no more sweet-talk

about being part of the solution to cut emissions. They want their

continuing right to pollute. At all cost.

Let’s do a replay. The conference had two tracks to negotiate. The

first concerned the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, where targets

had to be set for emission reduction by industrialized countries. For the

past two years, developing country negotiators struggled to get

discussions on these matters off the ground. But progress was painfully

slow. The Annex 1 countries (the ones that had to agree to targets)

refused to put on the table how much they would reduce. They also

refused to agree to set a baseline for emission reduction—choosing

any year most convenient to them, so setting weak and meaningless

targets. All this in a context where the science was certain: cut at least

40 per cent over 1990 levels by 2020.

*Director, Centre for Science & Environment


11

The second track was negotiation under the Long term Cooperative

Action (LCA) to agree upon the following. One, the targets for developed

countries, including countries such as the US, which does not accept

the Kyoto process. Two, to agree on how those mitigation actions the

developing countries take, that are funded and supported through

technology, will be measured, reported and verified. Three, an agreement

on how to pay for reduced deforestation, and addition of carbon sinks

(afforestation), in the developing world. Four, an agreement on adaptation,

to see how the poorest of the world, already impacted, will be supported

to cope better. And five, agreements on finance and technology. This

was the framework of the global cooperative pact to build climate change

strategies for the coming years. But these negotiations, too, were stuck.

It is now evident why: some countries had other plans.

As the conference opened in Copenhagen, a different game

emerged. A group of countries—led by the US and Australia and assisted

by the host government of Denmark—had every intention to subvert the

ongoing process and to replace the agreements with a framework of

their own. In the very first week, even as negotiators struggled to find

consensus on issues in the meeting rooms, the UK daily Guardian leaked

that the Danish government had a ‘paper’ ready to spring on the countries,

from outside the process. This paper contained the elements of the

new coalition of the willing (see ‘2nd coalition of the willing: bad for climate

and for us’, Down To Earth, November 1-15, 2009). It proposed weak

targets for the rich countries, changed the global, legally binding nature

of the pact to a voluntary strategy based on domestic actions and rejected

all principles of equity. As news broke of this ‘Danish proposal’ the hosts

played dumb. The proposal went underground.

But the proposal had powerful backers. A White House press note,

released a few weeks before the conference began, had announced

President Barack Obama would be making his way to Copenhagen and

mentioned there was “consensus on the Danish proposal”. So who was

lying?


12

On Monday (December 14), in the second week of the conference,

the African group, fed up with the intransigence, walked out. They wanted

discussion on the Kyoto Protocol targets agreed upon. They wanted a

deal that was effective. The shock treatment actions provoked some

response. At least, so everyone thought.

For, behind the scenes, the endgame was being readied. Inside the

negotiating rooms, discussions were deliberately blocked. The clock

was ticking to Friday (December 18), when leaders, including Obama,

were expected to sign an agreement. But no agreement was ready.

What was happening? This was being asked and not answered. On

record, the Danish presidency said they did not have an agreement,

ready to be sneaked in at the last minute. They said they were

transparent in their dealings.

On Wednesday, the next act of the underhand game played out.

The Danish presidency did a flop act. Suddenly in the plenary,

environment minister Troels Lund Poulsen announced the presidency

had drafts for two agreements, which they would give ‘shortly’. Sitting in

the plenary, I could see the obvious shock. But as China, India and others

responded saying this was unacceptable, the world media moved in.

The developing countries were now seen as ‘blocking’ the deal. They

were the bad guys.

The game played on. The Danes, faced with opposition from most

countries, once again withdrew. They now said they did not have a draft

agreement ready. Negotiations continued in rooms. The leaders arrived.

The speeches began. It was now Thursday night. In a few hours, the

agreement had to be signed. What agreement? What would be signed?

Sitting in the corridors that night, I heard the buzz grow. Now, it was

said, there was indeed a draft agreement the British government had

prepared, which would be given to world leaders at the dinner of the

Danish Queen. Bizarre. The dinner ended, no paper. Then suddenly


13

there was another buzz: upstairs in the same conference room, all

leaders were called in. French president Nicholas Sarkozy and UK Prime

Minister Gordon Brown were in the lead, making it clear the Danish

government had been shoved aside. The big guys had taken over.

It was now around midnight. The meeting had all the big ones inside,

except Obama, who had not arrived; our Prime Minister came late and

the Chinese Premier came and left. As people left the room, it was said

no paper was given, but it would be soon. This was around 3 am. From

then to sometime in the afternoon of that mind-blowing Friday, paper

after paper of the agreement made its way to the meeting. Inside the

room, all leaders gave their end speeches, sticking to lines. There was

still no agreement to sign. The elements contained in the draft paper

had already been rejected by the countries as a whole. It was too weak

in its targets to cut emissions and too distasteful in its unjust future

framework.

Then suddenly, a new twist came. Suddenly an announcement: the

leaders of the BASIC countries—the big polluters of the developing world,

Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Manmohan Singh of India and Wen

Jiabao of China, had agreed to a private pact with US president Barack

Obama. A few others, all clearly under pressure, also nodded to an

agreement—the infamous Copenhagen Accord, which repeated the

same non-principles of the Danish paper but added an inducement of

some US $30 billion in start-up money and some US $100 billion by

2020 for finance for adaptation and mitigation. The Copenhagen Accord

had been signed, it was said. The meeting was a success. Celebrations

broke out. Almost.

The meeting began to endorse the pact. Things went wrong again.

The arm-twisted accord came unstuck. First to reject it was Tuvalu—a

tiny island nation in the Pacific which could go under without tough

emission reduction commitments to keep temperatures under 1.5°C.

More voices spoke. Against. The UK and the US spoke loudly for the


14

accord. They openly induced, via the money promised. “Countries that

don’t sign won’t let the funds get operationalized.” But no consensus

was evident. “Our principles are not for sale. Keep your cheque book in

your pocket, give us numbers of emission targets, not money,” roared

back the Venezuelan delegate.

No accord was possible. Desperation was evident in the faces of

the proponents. The Danish PM Lars Rasmussen had sweat on his

forehead. At one moment, as he declared that the accord was dead, the

UK minister Ed Miliband rushed to call for an adjournment. Clearly, there

was more pushing and cajoling to be done backstage.

After a long wait, the meeting was reconvened. The UN secretary

general was called in for help. But to no avail, as countries refused to

allow the accord to be passed with consensus. It was agreed that it

would be ‘noted’ and that countries which wanted to associate with it

would write to the secretariat and get themselves listed as friends,

supporters and, I guess, recipients of the money promised.

The story isn’t over. Let us be clear. Copenhagen is the point at

which the world has shown its true colours— the polluters will not reduce

and will not pay. We are all poorer for it. The question now is: what can

and must we do?

✥ ✥ ✥ ✥ ✥


15

JUDGMENT SECTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAY.K. SABHARWAL, CJI; C.K. THAKKER, J. & R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

Writ Petition (civil) 4677 of 1985

Date of Decision: 29.09.2009

M.C. MEHTA......................PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.......................RESPONDENT

I.A. NO. 1970 IN I.A. NO. 22

IN

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4677 OF 1985

[With W.P. (C) Nos. 263, 264, 266, 450, 464 & 470 of 2006, I.A. Nos.

3-6, 8-12, 15-16, 18-22 in W.P. (C) No. 263 of 2006, I.A. No. 17 in I.A.

Nos. 5-6 in W.P. (C) NO. 263 of 2006 AND I.A. Nos. 1926-27, 1928-29,

1948, 1949, 1961, 1969, 1971-72, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977-78, & 1973

IN I.A. 22 IN W.P. (C) No. 4677 of 1985]

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI.

The city of Delhi is an example of a classical case, which, for the

last number of years, has been a witness of flagrant violations of

municipal laws, town planning laws and norms, master plan and

environmental laws. It is borne out from various orders and judgments

passed by this court and Delhi High Court, whether in a case of shifting

of hazardous and polluting industries or providing cleaner fuel (CNG) or

encroachment of public land and streets or massive unauthorized

construction and misuser of properties. It is a common knowledge that

these illegal activities are also one of the main sources of corruption.


16

The issue of commercial use of residential premises was decided

by this Court by judgment dated 16th February, 2006 in M.C. Mehta v.

Union of India and Ors. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 399. While reversing a

Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court, the stand of Municipal Corporation

of Delhi (MCD) was accepted and it was held that the Commissioner of

MCD is empowered to exercise power of sealing in case of misuse of

any premises. The judgment also noted certain individual cases as also

other residential properties being illegally used for commercial purposes.

Besides noting orders passed by this Court, from time to time, in the

last so many years which had no effect on the authorities, reference

was also made to some of the orders passed by the High Court in last

about 15 years. There was, however, no implementation. It was also

observed that such large scale misuser cannot take place without the

connivance of the officers who will have to show as to what effective

steps were taken to stop the misuser but the issue of accountability of

officers would be taken up after misuser is stopped at least on main

roads. The misuser activities included big furnishing stores, galleries,

sale of diamond and gold jewellery, sale of cars etc. While issuing

directions for implementation of laws, it was noted that if the entire

misuser cannot be stopped, at one point of time because of its extensive

nature, a beginning has to be made in a phased manner by first taking

sealing action against major violators. The cases of small shops opened

in residential houses for catering day-to-day basic needs were left out

for the present.

Thus, the plea of M.C.D. that it has power to seal premises in case

of misuser having been accepted, various directions were issued. The

directions included giving of wide publicity for stoppage of misuser by

the violators on their own and the commencement of sealing process if

the misuser is not stopped. The sealing process in a phased manner

was to commence on 29th March, 2006.

On 24th March, 2006, considering the prayer of the traders, time to

stop misuser was extended upto 30th June, 2006 subject to persons


17

claiming benefit of extended time filing affidavit stating that (i) on or before

30th June, 2006, misuser shall be stopped and no further extension on

any ground whatsoever shall be asked for, and (ii) giving an undertaking

to the effect that violation of condition of not stopping the misuser by

30th June, 2006 would subject him/her to offence of perjury and contempt

of court for violation of the order of the court. It was further directed that

premises in respect of which affidavits are not filed the process of sealing

shall commence with effect from 29th March, 2006.

A Monitoring Committee was also appointed to oversee the

implementation of the law, namely, sealing of the offending premises in

letter and spirit of the court’s directions. However, on 28th March, 2006,

a Notification was issued by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) modifying

Master Plan insofar as the chapter on mixed use is concerned.

The Union of India filed I.A. No.1931, inter alia, praying that the local

bodies be directed to complete the exercise of identification of mixed

use of roads/streets in residential areas within a period of six months.

An order was, therefore, passed on 28th April, 2006 permitting the

Government to place detailed facts before the Monitoring Committee to

find out if it is possible to give some relief to the traders. It was directed

that the Monitoring Committee will examine the facts broadly from prima

facie point of view to assist the Court and report if, in its view, some

relief in regard to the ongoing sealing can be given in respect of some of

the areas temporarily till the exercise as contemplated in the application

was complete. The Monitoring Committee heard all concerned including

Secretary of the Urban Development Ministry of Government of India

and examined the matter and filed its report on 4th May, 2006. When the

Application along with the report of the Monitoring Committee came up

for consideration before this Court, the same was withdrawn by the

Government of India on 11th May, 2006.

On 12th May, 2006, the Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Bill, 2006 was

passed by Lok Sabha; Rajya Sabha passed it on 15th May, 2006 and on


18

receipt of assent of the President on 19th May, 2006, it was notified the

same day.

On 20th May, 2006, the Government of India issued a Notification

placing a moratorium for a period of one year in respect of all notices

issued by local authorities in respect of categories of unauthorized

development. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Delhi

Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 (22 of 2006), the Central Government

directed local authorities to give effect to provisions of the said Act,

namely,

1) the premises sealed by any local authority in pursuance of a

judgment, order or decree of any court after the 1st day of

January, 2006, shall be eligible to be restored, for a period of

one year, with effect from 19th day of May, 2006, to the position

as was obtaining as on 1st day of January, 2006.

2) All commercial establishments which are required to cease

carrying out commercial activities at their premises by the 30th

day of June, 2006, may continue such activities, as they were

being carried out on the 1st day of January, 2006 for a period of

one year, with effect from 19th day of May, 2006.

By the aforesaid Act and the notice dated 20th May, 2006, the

Government purported to relieve the persons of the undertaking though

given to this Court and also purported to issue directions for removal of

seals though placed on the premises under the order of this Court.

On writ petitions being filed to declare the aforesaid Act

unconstitutional, on 23rd May, 2006, notices returnable for 17th July, 2006

were directed to be issued to the respondents in the writ petition as well

as on the Applications for stay. The matters were, however, taken up on

1st August, 2006, when the writ petitions were admitted and rule issued

by the Court noting that serious challenge had been made to the

constitutional validity of the Act.


19

The stay applications were considered on 10th August, 2001. In

support of plea for grant of stay, it was contended on behalf of the

petitioners that it is a unique statute which overrules, annuls and sets

aside the decision of this Court dated 16th February, 2006 and other

orders passed thereafter. In terms of Order made on 10th August, 2006

while not granting the complete stay of the impugned legislation, the

aforenoted two directions were stayed. Considering, however, that those

who had given undertaking may have been misled by directions contained

in the notice dated 20th May, 2006, time to comply the same was extended

upto 15th September, 2006. It was further directed that premises de-

sealed pursuant to notice dated 20th May, 2006 shall have to be again

sealed with effect from 16th September, 2006 in case misuser is not

stopped by 15th September, 2006. Certain other directions were also

issued on 10th August, 2006. After this Order, the Government withdrew

the public notice that had been issued on 20th May, 2006 in respect of

the undertakings and the premises that were sealed by the Court.

We may further note that on 21st July, 2006, public notices were

issued by DDA in exercise of power under Section 11-A of Delhi

Development Act stating that it proposed further modifications in the

Master Plan and inviting objections within 30 days from the date of

publication of the notice, namely, 23rd July, 2006.

The aforesaid public notice was in respect of mixed use policy.

Another public notice was also issued on the same date inviting

objections to the proposal for regularization of constructions carried out

in excess of the norms laid down by the notification dated 23rd July,

1998. According to the Government, public hearings on the aforesaid

notice were conducted between 23rd August, 2006 and 3rd September,

2006. DDA recommended the amendment of the Master Plan on 5th

September, 2006. The Master Plan was accordingly amended. On 7th

September, 2006 and on 15th September, 2006 about 2002 patches/

streets were notified for mixed use.


20

The constitutional validity of the Notification dated 7th September,

2006 is under challenge on various grounds in W.P.(C) Nos.450, 464

and 470/2006. The challenge deserves to be examined in depth and,

therefore, in these writ petitions, we issue Rule. Counter affidavit shall

be filed by respondents within 4 weeks. The respondents are further

directed to place before this Court material which was taken into

consideration for arriving at the decision leading to the amendment of

the Master Plan in terms of the Notification dated 7th September, 2006

and the consequential Notification dated 15th September, 2006.

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, senior advocate appearing as Amicus Curiae and

other learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as also petitioners

appearing in person seek stay of the impugned Notification dated 7th

September, 2006. The Government, on the other hand, seeks

modification of Order dated 10th August, 2006 in the light of the said

Notification. In the writ petition of Mr.Omesh Sehgal, a former Chief

Secretary of Delhi, one of the pleas raised is that inviting objections and

grant of hearing was a farce since decision had already been made to

amend Master Plan even before inviting objections and the hearing was

a mere formality and further the modification of an already expired Master

Plan is not permissible. It has been further submitted that if any interim

relief is to be granted, it should be confined only to small shops.

The small shops are presently protected as noted in the M.C.Mehta

(supra). Further, the Monitoring Committee classifying shops measuring

20 sq. meters as ’small shops’ has recommended that the said shops

be exempted from the purview of sealing operation in the residential

areas. According to the Reports dated 14th September, 2006 and 27th

September, 2006 of the Monitoring Committee, the shops falling in the

category of small shops trading in the following items may be allowed in

residential areas :

i. Vegetables/fruits/flowers;

ii. Bakery items/confectionary items;


21

iii. Kirana/General stores;

iv. Dairy products;

v. Stationery/Books/Gifts/Book binding;

vi. Photostat/Fax/STD/PCO;

vii. Cyber cafi/Call phone booths;

viii. LPG Booking office/Show room without LPG cylinders;

ix. Atta chakki;

x. Meat/Poultry and Fish shop;

xi. Pan shop;

xii. Barber shop/Hair dressing saloon/Beauty Parlour;

xiii. Laundry/Dry cleaning/ironing;

xiv. Sweet shops/Tea stall without sitting arrangements;

xv. Chemist shops;

xvi. Optical shops;

xvii. Tailoring shops;

xviii. Electrical/Electronic repair shop; and

xix. Photo studio

xx. Cable TV/DTH Operations

xxi. Hosiery/Readymade Garments/Cloth shops

xxii. ATM

In the report dated 14th September, 2006, the Monitoring Committee

has also noted about the survey conducted by MCD on 185 notified

roads to find out nature of activities of the commercial establishments

on those roads. Broadly the activities of commercial establishments on

these roads are of automobile showrooms; automobile workshops;

branded showrooms; call centers; coaching institutes; business offices;

building materials; godowns; tent houses; guest houses; jewellery shops;

restaurants and iron & steel shops.


22

At this stage, the question to be considered is whether pending the

decision of the writ petitions, should this Court modify Order dated 10th

August, 2006 and decline prayer for stay of the Notification dated 7th

September, 2006 or decline modification of the Order and stay the

Notification or pass any other order having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the entire situation. We have heard extensive

submissions made by learned counsel.

Many of persons, who gave undertakings to remove the misuser by

30th June, 2006 have filed separate applications in view of the Notification

dated 7th September, 2006 and in substance sought to be relieved of the

undertakings so that they could continue commercial user. Likewise,

those whose premises were sealed also seek issue of directions for the

opening of the seals.

The sealing was to commence on 29th March, 2006. However, in

view of the undertakings, misuser was allowed to be continued upto 30th

June, 2006. Despite the undertakings, the misuser has continued till

date, as noted hereinbefore. There cannot be any doubt that the

Legislature would lack competence to extend the time granted by this

Court in the purported exercise of law making power. That would be

virtually exercising judicial functions. Such functions do not vest in the

Legislature. In fact, those who gave undertakings are already in breach

of the undertakings by not stopping misuser by 30th June, 2006. The

dignity and authority of the Court has to be protected not for any individual

but for maintenance of the rule of law. The fact that those who gave

undertakings may have been misled in view of subsequent developments

can only be a mitigating factor while considering the action to be taken

for breach of the undertakings.

Further, there are no equities in favour of those who gave undertakings

to this Court and obtained the benefit of time otherwise their premises

could have been sealed on 29th March, 2006 or soon thereafter. The

nature of trade conducted by most of them who gave undertakings has


23

been noted above. There is serious challenge to the validity of the Act

and the Notification. Pending determination thereof, such persons cannot

be allowed to claim any benefit of the Notification.

In the background of the above facts and having considered the

submissions made, we issue the following directions :

(i) Re : Premises relating to which undertakings were given The

commercial activities by those who gave undertakings deserve

to be stopped forthwith. Having regard, however, to the plea of

forthcoming major festivals, we permit those who gave

undertakings to stop misuser on or before 31st October, 2006.

(ii) Re : Small Shops

Small Shops, i.e., measuring not more than 20 sq. mts. in

residential areas are allowed trading in the following items :

i. Vegetables/fruits/flowers;

ii. Bakery items/confectionary items;

iii. Kirana/General stores;

iv. Dairy products;

v. Stationery/Books/Gifts/Book binding;

vi. Photostat/Fax/STD/PCO;

vii. Cyber cafi/Call phone booths;

viii. LPG Booking office/Show room without LPG cylinders;

ix. Atta chakki;

x. Meat/Poultry and Fish shop;

xi. Pan shop;

xii. Barber shop/Hair dressing saloon/Beauty Parlour;

xiii. Laundry/Dry cleaning/ironing;


24

xiv. Sweet shops/Tea stall without sitting arrangements;

xv. Chemist shops;

xvi. Optical shops;

xvii. Tailoring shops;

xviii. Electrical/Electronic repair shop; and

xix. Photo studio

xx. Cable TV/DTH Operations

xxi. Hosiery/Readymade Garments/Cloth shops

xxii. ATM

(iii) Re : Other premises for which protection is extended by

Notification dt. 7.9.2006

Regarding the remaining premises which may be covered by

the Notification dated 7th September, 2006 read with 15th

September, 2006, we direct that the said premises may not be

sealed pending decision of these petitions on undertakings

being filed before the Monitoring Committee on or before 10th

November, 2006 that misuser shall be stopped as per the

directions of this Court if the Act is invalidated and/or the

Notification is quashed. Further, the undertakings shall state

that the trade is being conducted in respect of the permissible

items and only in that part of the premises in which commercial

activity is now permitted as per the impugned Notification dated

7th September, 2006 read with Notification dated 15th

September, 2006, viz. if commercial activity has been made

permissible on the ground floor, the affidavit shall state that it is

being carried out only in the ground floor and not on the other

floors and in support a certificate of the registered Architect

shall be annexed. Any Architect giving wrong certificate would

subject himself to appropriate action including cancellation of

certificate to carry on the profession of Architect.


25

(iv) Re : Premises for which protection is not extended by

Notification dated 7.9.2006

In respect of the remaining premises not covered by the

Notifications dated 7th September, 2006 and 15th September,

2006, the sealing process will continue in terms of the Order

dated 16th February, 2006 and 10th August, 2006. The direction

of sealing premises will also apply to specific properties

mentioned in the judgment dated 16th February, 2006 and in

the Report of the Monitoring Committee dated 14th September,

2006. The sealing would be done in a systemic manner as per

directions of Monitoring Committee and not in a haphazard

manner. There shall be no misuser of public land or public

street. The authorities shall ensure that the Roads, Public

Streets and pathways meant for public is kept free for their use

and the commercial activity is not extended thereupon. The

commercial user in contravention of judgment in M.C. Mehta’s

case (supra), order dated 10th August, 2006 and Notifications

dated 7th September, 2006 and 15th September, 2006 subject

to what is stated in this order shall be liable to be sealed.

(v) General Directions :

(a) We direct that the owner/occupier of small shops and

also others who have been permitted to continue and not

stop commercial activity for the present, under this order

shall get themselves registered upto 31st December,

2006.

(b) In respect of the premises which have been sealed under

the orders of this Court, we permit them to approach the

Monitoring Committee which will consider each case on

its merit and make appropriate report to this Court on

consideration whereof necessary directions may be

issued.


26

(c) The respondents are restrained from issuing any other

Notification for conversion of residential user into

commercial user except with the leave of this Court.

(d) We also hope that without any further loss of time the

Government and the concerned authorities, instead of

ad hoc measures like the present, would now undertake

proper planning keeping into consideration all relevant

factors including the interests of those residents which

may not have any voice.

(e) Before concluding, we may note the grievance placed

before us on behalf of professionals including Doctors,

Lawyers, Chartered Accountants and Architects in respect

of the Notification dated 7th September, 2006. Relying

upon notifications dated 27th November, 1998 and 7th

June, 2000 and Press Release dated 27th November,

1998, they say that restrictions sought to put in the

Notification dated 7th September, 2006 were not there

earlier and may be restrictions have been put by

inadvertence. Mrs. Indira Jaisingh, appearing for

Government of India says that she will have it examined

by the Government and, if required, necessary correction

will be made.

The Common Cause Society is permitted to intervene in the matter.

The Interlocutory Application Nos. 5, 6, 8 to 12, 15-16, 18 to 22 in Writ

Petition (C) No. 263 of 2006, I.A. No. 17 in I.A. Nos. 5-6 in Writ Petition

(C) No. 263 of 2006 and I.A. Nos. 1970, 1926-27, 1928-29, 1948, 1949,

1961, 1969, 1971- 72, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977-78 and 1973 in I.A. No.

22 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985 are disposed of in terms of the

aforesaid order. List the matters in the month of November 2006 for

further directions.

✥ ✥ ✥ ✥ ✥


27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIBADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. & VEENA BIRBAL, J.

WP (C) 8120/2009


PRAVEEN MITTAL ..................PETITIONER

Versus

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,GOVT OF NCT, DELHI..................RESPONDENTS

Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Petitioner : Dr

Ashutosh Jai Singh with Ms Urmi Nanchahal. For the Respondent : Mr

Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with Ms Ruchi Sindhwani, Ms. Aakanksha Sharma

and Mr Amey Nargolker.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes

JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the clarification issued by the

Department of Environment, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi

on 20.02.2009, with regard to the use of non-woven bags. The

clarification was issued in the context of the earlier notification dated

07.01.2009, which was issued by the Lt. Governor of the National

Capital Territory of Delhi, in exercise of powers conferred under

Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with

Notification No.U-11030/J/91-UTL dated 10.09.1992 and in purported


28

compliance of this court s order dated 07.08.2008 in WP(C) 6456/

2004 entitled Vinod Kumar Jain v. Union of India and Another.The order dated 07.08.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this court

in Vinod Kumar Jain (supra) pertained to the use of plastic bags

and the failure on the part of civic agencies with regard to solid waste

management in Delhi. The said petition was filed in public interest.

By the said order dated 07.08.2008, the writ petition was disposed

of by, inter alia, directing that:-

“iv) Government of NCT of Delhi shall issue an appropriate notification

forbidding use of plastic bags in the main markets and local shopping

centres apart from hotels, hospitals and malls where use of such

bags is already forbidden.”

2. Pursuant to the said direction, the Government of NCT of Delhi issued

the aforementioned notification dated 07.01.2009, the relevant portion

of which reads as under:-

“In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986 read with notification No.U-11030/J/91-UTL

dated 10-9-1992 and in compliance of the Hon ble High Court of

Delhi s order dated 7th August, 2008 in WP(C) No.6456 of 2004, the

Lieutenant Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi hereby

directs the following:- 2. That the use, sale and storage of all kinds of

plastic bags shall be forbidden in respect of the following places in

the National Capital Territory of Delhi, namely:- (a) Five Star and

Four Star Hotels. (b) Hospitals with 100 or more beds except for the

use of plastic bags as prescribed under Bio Medical Waste

(Management and Handling) Rules, 1998. (c) All restaurants and

eating places having seating capacity of more than 50 seats. (d) All

fruit and vegetable outlets of Mother Dairy. (e) All liquor vends. (f) All

shopping Malls. (g) All shops in main markets and local shopping

centres. (h) All retail and whole sale outlets of Branded chain of outlets

selling different consumer products including fruits and vegetables.


29

3. In places other than the aforesaid places and as observed by the

Hon ble High Court of Delhi only Bio-degradable plastic bags shall

be used.”

3. Thereafter, certain queries had been raised on behalf of the

Confederation of All India Traders, the Polythene Film Manufacturers

Association, the Delhi Mercantile Association and others with regard

to the use of non-woven bags. In response to the said queries, the

impugned clarification dated 20.02.2009 has been issued by the

Department of Environment, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi.

The same reads as under:-

“Subject: Clarification regarding use of Non-woven bags. Sir, I am

directed to refer to your queries regarding the above subject. It has

been brought to the notice of this Department that after the ban on

the use of all kinds of plastic bags, in compliance of the Hon ble High

Court of Delhi s order dated 07.08.2008 there is increase in the use

of non-woven types of bags which is also stated to be non-

biodegradable. In order to assess the composition of these kinds of

bags, testing was conducted at Shriram Institute of Industrial

Research, New Delhi, which has clearly indicated that the composition

of such non-woven bags contained Polypropylene to the tune of

98.3% which is again a non-biodegradable material. This fact was

discussed in the Consent Management Committee meeting held on

20.2.2009 and it has been decided that such bags are also covered

in the ambit of the High Court s order and hence shall not be allowed

in the Local Shopping Complexes and Main Markets in Delhi. This

may clearly be communicated to all your members and may be

circulated to them in your communication directing them not to use

such bags. This is for information and strict compliance. Yours

sincerely, Sd/- (M. Dwarakanath) Sr. Sci. Officer”

4. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note that the said notification

dated 07.01.2009 was the subject matter of challenge in WP (C)

883/2009 entitled All India Plastic Industries Association and


30

others v. Government of NCT of Delhi. One of the questions raised

in that writ petition was – whether, on merits, the notification dated

07.01.2009 was invalid in law ? The Division Bench hearing the said

WP(C) 883/2009, by its judgment and / or order dated 14.07.2009,

answered the question in the negative. In other words, the Division

Bench upheld the validity of the notification dated 07.01.2009. The

Division Bench observed that:-

“There can be no doubt that the limitations imposed are in public

interest and have, apparently, been enforced in several other parts

of India also. Merely because some commercial interests of the

Petitioners are diluted does not mean that there is no public interest

in issuing the impugned notification.” Consequently, the Division

Bench found no good reason to strike down the impugned notification,

i.e., the notification dated 07.01.2009, and dismissed the writ petition.

The said Division Bench decision in the case of All India PlasticIndustries Association (supra) considered direction (iv) issued by

the earlier Division Bench on 07.08.2008. In All India PlasticIndustries Association (supra), the Division Bench clearly held:-

“The intention of the earlier Division Bench was clearly to forbid the

use of plastic bags completely in eight broadly categorized areas.

This clearly expressed in direction (iv).” In the said decision dated

14.07.2009, it was also observed as under:-

“40. The true test, in these circumstances, would be this: Can the

direction be sustained without the „offending words on the basis of

the contents of the judgment? In our opinion, the answer to this is in

the affirmative. It appears to us that the earlier Division Bench was

conscious of the fact that “A blanket ban on the use of plastic bags

may be premature having regard to the to the fact that plastic bags

are indeed part of the commercial milieu in the city and cannot be

completely banned without providing cheap and acceptable

alternatives.” It is for this reason that the earlier Division Bench did

not ban the use of plastic bags all over the city – it restricted the ban


31

only to a few specified areas. The logic of this is to be found in the

following words from the decision of the earlier Division Bench: “If

plastic bags are unacceptable in hotels, hospitals and malls, there

is no reason why they should be permitted in main markets and

local shopping centres. In that view forbidding use of plastic bags

even in main markets and local shopping centres would, therefore,

help in dealing with the menace of plastic garbage in Delhi.” 41. At

this stage, we need to remind ourselves that the earlier Division

Bench was concerned with (1) the difficulty in the management of

solid waste caused, inter alia, by plastic bags – not necessarily

degradable or non-degradable plastic bags, and (2) the possibility of

a total ban on the use of plastic bags in Delhi. The solution arrived at

by the earlier Division Bench was that (1) the management of solid

waste caused, inter alia, by plastic bags is possible if the use of

plastic bags is curbed in some specified areas, and (2) a complete

or a blanket ban on the use of plastic bags is inadvisable. We see no

difficulty, per se, in accepting both these conclusions which were

arrived at after hearing all affected parties.”

5. According to the petitioner, the non-woven bags manufactured by it,

would not strictly fall under the category of “plastic bags” since they

do not have the essential characteristics of plastic. According to the

petitioner, plastic is made of film grade propylene. After the film is

formed, it is stitched to make plastic bags. On the other hand, non-

woven bags, such as those manufactured by the petitioner, are made

of fibre grade propylene (350 FG). The said fibre grade propylene

cannot be used to make plastic film and is only used for the purposes

of making non-woven fabric / yarn, which, according to the petitioner,

is altogether different from plastic. The further contention of the

petitioner is that the non-woven propylene fibre bags are breathable

and porous and that water can pass through them. Consequently,

they would not choke the sewage system. The non-woven

polypropylene fibre bags are made out of polypropylene fibres and,


32

although they are not woven, but are bonded together, the end product

is essentially a fabric.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Tariff

Heading 56.03 of the Central Excise Tariff, to indicate that their product

was classified as “textile fabric”. This was in an attempt to show that

the non-woven polypropylene fibre bags manufactured by them were

not really plastic bags as contemplated by the High Court in its order

dated 07.08.2008 in WP(C) 6456/2004 as also in the notification

dated 07.01.2009. The petitioner also submitted that the product

manufactured by them had a soft fabric feel and was strong,

washable and printable and that it was also 100% recyclable and

degradable, though not bio-degradable.

7. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the judgment

of this court dated 07.08.2008 has been misunderstood by the

respondent in the sense that the spirit of that judgment is not to ban

plastic bags altogether, but to find a suitable alternative for plastic

bags. According to the petitioner, the non-woven polypropylene fibre

bags are a suitable alternative to plastic bags made out of

polypropylene film. With regard to the decision of this court in the

case of All India Plastic Industries Association (supra), the

petitioner clearly submitted that it did not dispute the findings therein

in respect of the notification dated 07.01.2009 issued in pursuance

of the earlier judgment of 07.08.2008, whereby the prohibition of use

of plastic bags had been extended to shopping malls, main markets

and local shopping centres. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the challenge is not directed against the notification

of 07.01.2009, but against the clarification whereby the petitioner s

product is sought to be brought within the ambit of “plastic bags”.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner s

product, i.e., non-woven propylene bags, are not strictly plastic and,

therefore, cannot be covered under the said notification dated

07.01.2009. It was further contended that the impugned clarification


33

has sought to bring the product of the petitioner within the ambit of

the said judgment of this court and the notification dated 07.01.2009,

not on the ground that it is plastic, but on the ground that it is non-

biodegradable. It was further reiterated that the spirit of the judgment

dated 07.08.2008 was that an alternative to plastic should be found

and that the petitioner s product is, essentially, an alternative to plastic

bags and ought not to be covered within the ban in terms of the

notification dated 07.01.2009.

8. Mr. Parag Tripathi, the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG),

who appeared on behalf of the respondent, submitted that the

polypropylene non-woven bags are clearly within the ambit of the

expression “plastic bags” inasmuch as they contain 98.3%

polypropylene. He submitted that this fact, which is mentioned in the

impugned clarification, has not been assailed. The clarification dated

20.02.2009, clearly indicates that in order to assess the composition

of such kind of bags, testing was conducted at Shriram Institute of

Industrial Research, New Delhi, which has clearly indicated that such

non-woven bags contained polypropylene to the extent of 98.3%,

which, again, is a non-biodegradable material. He submitted that

non-woven bags possess similar properties to that of plastic bags.

He submitted that use of non-woven polypropylene fibre is as harmful

as propylene bags or plastic bags made out of propylene film. Both

fall under the category of “plastic” and both are non-biodegradable.

With regard to the Central Excise classification, the learned ASG

submitted that the said classification as a textile has been done for

specific purposes, and the same cannot be used to make a distinction

between non-woven bags and plastic bags. He submitted that while

polypropylene fibre can be moulded in such a manner to form non-

woven textiles, which have a fabric like structure, it does not mean

that they lose their property of being a plastic all the same. The learned

ASG referred to the definition of “polypropylene” as per the New

Lexicon Webster s Dictionary of English Language. According to

the said dictionary, “polypropylene” means:- “a thermoplastic resin


34

that is a moisture-resistant, hard, tough plastic used to make

moulded objects in plates, fibres, film, rope and toys”. He also referred

to the Delhi Plastic Bag (Manufacture, Sales and Usage) and Non-

biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to

as „the Delhi Plastic Bag Act ). Section 2(h) of the said Delhi Plastic

Bag Act defines “non-biodegradable garbage” to mean waste,

garbage or material, which is not bio-degradable garbage and

includes “plastic material”, such as polyethylene, nylon, PVC,

polypropylene, pet etc., which are not capable of being easily

destroyed by the action of living organisms, light, heat, moisture,

radiations, oxidations or combination of all these factors and which

are more specifically included in the Schedule of the said Act. The

Schedule to the said Act lists items which fall under the category of

“non-biodegradable garbage”. Polypropylene is indicated at S.No.4.

It was, therefore, contended that polypropylene was non-

biodegradable and was a plastic material. Thus, non-woven bags,

which contain 98.3% polypropylene, would clearly be covered within

the ambit of the expression “plastic bags” and, more particularly,

“non-biodegradable plastic bags”. The learned ASG, therefore,

submitted that the writ petition ought to be dismissed.

9. Having considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties,

the key question that has to be answered is – whether the non-

woven bags made out of polypropylene fibre would fall within the

ambit of the expression “plastic bags”? It is an admitted position that

the non-woven bags, which form the subject matter of this writ

petition, comprise of 98.3% polypropylene. Consequently, it would

not be wrong to say that the non-woven bags in question are

essentially non-woven polypropylene bags. The definition of

polypropylene given in the New Lexicon Webster s Dictionary makes

it clear that propylene is a plastic and is used to make moulded

objects in various forms. These forms include plates, fibres, films,

ropes and toys. Polypropylene fibres are used for the manufacture

of these non-woven bags. Polypropylene film is used for making


35

plastic bags as they are normally understood. Whether it is

polypropylene fibre or it is polypropylene film, the end product made

out of it would remain to be plastic, provided the end product

predominantly contains polypropylene, whether fibre or film. In the

present case, the admitted position is that the non-woven bags

comprise of 98.3% polypropylene. Therefore, the conclusion is simple

that the end product is nothing but plastic. Since the products

manufactured by the petitioner are admittedly bags, they would fall

within the expression “plastic bags”.

10. We may also point out that the clarification dated 20.02.2009 was

really not necessary. This is so because when we consider the

question of prohibiting the use of plastic bags in main markets and

local shopping centres, the same is provided in paragraph 2 of the

notification dated 07.01.2009. The said paragraph 2 clearly stipulates

that the use, sale and storage of “all kinds of plastic bags” shall be

forbidden in respect of, inter alia, all shops and main markets and

local shopping centres. Thus, whether the non-woven bags were

bio-degradable or non-biodegradable, would be irrelevant for the

purposes of paragraph 2 of the notification dated 07.01.2009. All that

was needed to be seen was – whether the non-woven bags fell

within the category of “plastic bags” or not ? It did not matter, in the

least, as to whether they were degradable or non-biodegradable.

The question of bio-degradable plastic bags is only relevant for the

purposes of paragraph 3 of the notification dated 07.01.2009, which

refers to all other places not mentioned in paragraph 2 of the said

notification.

11. In any event, the petitioner’s non-woven polypropylene bags would

be covered in the expression “all kinds of plastic bags” as appearing

in paragraph 2 of the said notification. Since the non-woven bags

are admittedly not bio-degradable, they cannot be used at other places

in Delhi also in view of paragraph 3 of the notification dated

07.01.2009. The argument that the petitioner s product is porous


36

and that water can pass through the same is of no consequence

because that is not the consideration which is to be taken into account

while construing the notification dated 07.01.2009. Paragraph 2 of

the said notification, as already indicated above, refers to “all kinds”

of plastic bags. Once the petitioner s product falls within the ambit of

“plastic bags”, it is immaterial as to whether it is porous or whether

it is a textile. The petitioner s argument that non-woven polypropylene

bags are an alternative to plastic bags also does not appeal to us.

The non-woven polypropylene bags are plastic bags in themselves

and, therefore, they cannot be a substitute for plastic bags as

suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

12. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

✥ ✥ ✥ ✥ ✥


37

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Reported in: JT2009(13)SC435


Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Association

Versus

Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association and Ors.

Ms. G.M. Padma Priya*

Taking the environmental jurisprudence a step further, in the present

case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the principles of “polluters-

pay” and “precautionary principle” have to be read with the doctrine of

“sustainable development”, thus holding the members of the appellant

Association responsible for the unabated pollution caused by them in

the water of river Noyyal in Tamil Nadu.

FACTS

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a Public

Interest Litigation was filed by the Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection

Association, a registered Association, before the Madras High Court

seeking directions for preservation of ecology and for keeping the Noyyal

river in Tamil Nadu free from pollution. According to the said Association,

a large number of industries including the appellants had indulged in

dyeing and bleaching works at Tirupur area and discharging the industrial

effluents into the Noyyal river which polluted the water to such an extent

that it was neither fit for irrigation nor potable. The pollution also adversely

affected the Orthapalayam reservoir and other tanks and channels of

the said river.

A similar issue i.e. menace of pollution had also earlier been raised

by another association before the Madras High Court which was

*Advocate, High Court of Delhi


38

disposed of by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 26.2.1998

on the basis of joint Memo of Understanding filed by all the contesting

parties, which contained the terms, to implement the pollution control

measures and to pay the damages etc. The dyeing and bleaching units

were directed to contribute certain amount to meet the expenses of

cleaning of the Orathapalayam dam. For compliance of the said order, a

period of three months was given.

After more than two years of the passing of above Order dated

26.02.1998 by the Madras High Court, the Government of Tamil Nadu

issued an order to carry out a study on the restoration of Orthapalayam

Dam by experts in the field. The study was completed and a report was

prepared, according to which, there had been no improvement in the

quality of water. Thereafter, the present respondent No. 1, i.e., the Noyyal

River Ayacutdars Protection Association) filed Writ Petition No. 29791 of

2003 before the Madras High Court and sought directions that appellants

herein, would clean the river water stored at Orathapalayam dam within

a stipulated time at its own expense, or to recover the expenses which

could be recovered from the dyeing and bleaching Units Associations

and thereby preventing the pollution of the Noyyal river in future by the

said units.

The High Court passed the order dated 26.12.2006, as an interim

measure keeping the petition pending, issuing, inter alia, the following

directions:

(a) The Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) are given timeupto the 31st of July, 2007 to achieve the Zero LiquidDischarge(ZLD) of trade effluents subject to the followingconditions:

(i) The concerned CETPs are directed to pay a fine on pro ratabasis at the rate of six paise per litre from Ist January, 2007to 31st March, 2007; at the rate of eight paise per litre fromIst April, 2007 to 31st May, 2007; and at the rate of ten paise


39

per litre from 1st June, 2007 to 31st July, 2007In case theCETPs or any of them commit any default in payment offine, the Pollution Control Board shall direct closure of suchdefaulting CETP and the Member Units and also disconnectthe power supply to such defaulting CETP and the MemberUnits.

(ii) The CETPs or any of them on achieving Zero LiquidDischarge shall satisfy the Pollution Control Board about theirZLD status and the Pollution Control Board upon verificationshall issue appropriate certificate from which date, suchCETP shall not be liable to pay the fine. In any event, if theCETPs or any of them fail to achieve the ZLD on or before31st July, 2007, the Pollution Control Board shall forthwithdirect closure of such CETPs and the Member Units andalso disconnect the power supply to such defaulting CETPand the Member Units.

(b) The respondents are directed to deposit the balance sum of Rs.8.50 Crores out of Rs. 12.50 Crores estimated by the P.W.D.towards the cleaning and desilting operations of theOrathapalayam dam to be carried out by the Public WorksDepartment

(c) The respondents are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.22,99,98,548/- being the remaining of the total compensation ofRs. 24,79,98,548/- awarded by the Loss of Ecology Authority inits Award dated 17.12.2004..

(d) The respondents are further directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 12crores as an ad-hoc compensation towards the estimated lossfor the years 2005, 2006 and 2007.

(q) The Public Works Department is directed to continue with thecleaning and desilting operations of the Orathapalayam Dam


40

and the cleaning of the Noyyal river shall be carried out throughthe petitioner association as per the orders of this Court.

(r) The respondents are directed to finalise the site for dumping thesolid waste from the Orathapalayam dam as well as from theNoyyal river which has been kept in bags and in open spaces.The Pollution Control Board is directed to provide theinfrastructure and technical expertise for removal of the solidwaste from the units as well as the dam to the notified site. Theabove exercise shall be done within a period of three months.

A review was also filed against the aforesaid Order by the appellants,

which was dismissed by the Madras High Court. The aforesaid Order of

the Madras High Court was challenged by the appellants in the present

case.

HELD:

It was argued on behalf of the appellants that vide the impugned

order a very heavy fine had been imposed on the appellants without any

material on record on the basis of which such a liability could be fastened

on the unit owners. It was further argued that there are more than 40

thousand families to earn their livelihood on dyeing and bleaching industry

and several lakh persons are employed in its ancillary industries who

were directly dependant on this business, whose livelihood may be

adversely affected by the impugned Order.

The Hon’ble Court noted that Tirupur is the place exporting the finest

garments to all foreign countries. It is an industrial hub providing

employment to 5 lakh persons. The State Government has granted Sales

Tax exemption to the units indulged in bleaching and dyeing units,

considering the importance of the place and taking into account the nature

of the industries. The country earns about 10,000/- crores in foreign

exchange annually. The industries have provided the means of livelihood

to a large number of persons indulged in transport of passengers and


41

goods in the area to the extent of 80 kilometers radius for the purpose of

fetching labourers residing away from the city and to deal with the export

business.

The Apex Court considered several precedents concerning the issue.

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India reported in

(1996) 3 SCC 212 it was held that once the industrial activities carried

out are found to be hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person

carrying on such activities are liable to make good the loss caused to

any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took

reasonable care while carrying out his industrial or commercial activities.

Therefore, the polluting industries are absolutely liable to compensate

for the harm caused by it to villagers or other affected persons of the

area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, the industry is

bound to take all necessary measures to prevent degradation of

environment and also to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the

affected area. As the liability of the polluter is absolute for harm to the

environment it extends not only to the victims of pollution but also to

meet the cost of restoring the pollution free environment.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India reported in AIR

1996 SC 2715 various constitutional provisions including Articles 47,

48A, 51A(g) were considered and it was held that it is the duty of the

State to protect and preserve the ecology, as Article 21 of the Constitution

guarantees protection of life and personal liberty and every person has

a right to pollution free atmosphere. Therefore, the “precautionary

principle” and the “polluter-pays” principle have been accepted as a part

of the law of the land being the part of environmental law of the country.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India reported in (2004)12 SCC 118 the

Supreme Court explained the scope of “precautionary principle”

observing that it requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm.

The concept of “sustainable development” was also explained to mean

that it covers the development that meets the needs of the person without


42

compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs.

It means the development, that can take place and which can be

sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation. Therefore a

balance has to be struck between economic growth and environment

Testing the correctness of the impugned order on the basis of the

aforesaid settled legal propositions and in consideration of the detailed

report submitted by the Inspection Committee constituted by the Pollution

Control Board, the Hon’ble Court held that since the appellant Association

was responsible for the polluting the water of river Noyyal, they were

liable to meet the expenses of reversing the ecology, cleaning the dam

and compensating the farmers who had to suffer because of the pollution

caused by them. The Hon’ble Court granted three months time to the

appellants to ensure compliance of directions to make the CETPs

functional and pay the balance amount for cleaning the dam and river

and meet the compensation to the adversely affected persons. Pollution

Control Board was also directed to ensure that no further pollution was

caused.

This Court vide order dated 18.5.2007 stayed the impugned order of

the High Court only to the extent that the directions to close down the

industries would not be given effect to from 31.7.2007. This Order has

been extended from time to time. On 10 th August, 2007, this Court

directed the members of the petitioners’ association to deposit a sum of

Rs. 25 crores within a period of six weeks before the High Court and

further to file an affidavit as what progress has been made in respect of

the CETPs and treatment plants. This Court vide order dated 12.5.09,

directed the Board to inspect the Noyyal River and find out whether any

pollution is caused by the factories owned by the members of the

appellant Association and file a report on or before 27.7.09.

21. The Inspection Committee constituted by the Board made

following observations during inspections on 8.7.2009 and

9.7.2009:


43

(A) There is no flow of surface water in the upstream side ofAgrahara Puthur road bridge (S1) across the NoyyalRiver and it was found dry during inspection on 8.7.2009and 9.7.2009 with isolated ponding of small quantity ofwater.

(B) Flow of water was observed in Noyyal River at the stretchof Tiruppur Town where Bleaching and Dyeing units arelocated and downstream at Orathupalayam Dam.

(C) Along with the primary treated effluent from existingbleaching and dyeing units, domestic effluent fromTiruppur Corporation [Formerly Tiruppur Municipality],Nallur Municipality and other villages located along thebanks of Noyyal River is discharged into Noyyal River,which also contributes to the flow in the River and organicpollution load.

(D) In the entire stretch of Noyyal River falling in thejurisdiction of Tiruppur Corporation and NallurMunicipality, Municipal Solid wastes are being dumpedalong the River itself, which also contributes to the pollutionload in Noyyal.

The impact of industrial pollution on river is revealed by the

presence of high pH (alkalinity), very high Total Dissolved solids

(TDS), excess chloride (C1 ) and percent sodium (%Na). Also

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen

Demand (COD) are not at an acceptable level. Moreover, the

dark red colour of the water in the River Noyyal, was seen

during inspection.

22. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 27.07.09, the said

Inspection Committee again inspected the 17 CETPs in Tirupur

during 3.8.2009 and 4.8.2009 and submitted the Report. The


44

17 CETPs had paid only Rs. 17,22,46,031/- (Rupees

seventeen crores twenty two lacs forty six thousands and thirty

one only) as against Rs. 55,60,96,848/- (Rupees fifty five crores

sixty lacs ninty six thousands eight hundred and forty eight

only). This total sum has been arrived at on the basis of number

of working days multiplied by the daily consented quantity/

applied quantity of effluent of member units, leaving a balance

to be remitted as Rs. 38,38,50,817/- (Rupees thirty eight crores

thirty eight lacs fifty thousands eight hundred and seventeen

only). The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 25 crores in

the High Court of Madras as per the direction of this Court

dated 10.8.2007.

23. Some of the member units of the CETPs have obtained the

consent of the Board in accordance with law. Some of them

have applied to the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board for

consent, but consent was not issued to them in view of the

provisions of the G.O.Ms. No. 213 Environment and Forests

(EC-1) Department dated 30.3.1989 and G.O.Ms. No. 127.

24. With regard to the technical aspect, Inspection Committee

submitted that among the 17 CETPs, 11 CETPs have

completed 90% to 97% works relating to the ZLD system. The

remaining minor works to be completed related to the

establishment of an adequate Solar Evaporation Pan area,

considering the evaporation rate as 4.5 mm per sq.m. per day.

The other 3 CETPs have completed above 90% of the works

relating to the ZLD system. The remaining works to be

completed related to the establishment of adequate Solar

Evaporation Pan area and loading of the membranes into the

RO module, etc.

25. The remaining 3 CETPs have completed below 80% of work

relating to the ZLD systems. The remaining percentage of works


45

to be completed relates to the establishment of adequate Solar

Evaporation Pan area, Boiler, Crystallizer, loading of the

membranes into the RO module, etc.

26. In view of the above fact that this matter is pending before this

Court for more than two and a half years and the members of

the appellant Association had been permitted to continue their

business, it is desirable that the members of the appellant

Association should ensure the compliance of all the directions

including the payment of dues etc. issued by the Court within a

period of three months from today. They shall ensure that no

pollution is caused to the river or dam and if cleaning operation

has not yet been completed, it shall be completed within the

said stipulated period.

27. Undoubtedly, there has been unabated pollution by the

members of the appellant Association. They cannot escape

the responsibility to meet out the expenses of reversing the

ecology. They are bound to meet the expenses of removing

the sludge of the river and also for cleaning the dam. The

principles of “polluters-pay” and “precautionary principle” have

to be read with the doctrine of “sustainable development”. It

becomes the responsibility of the members of the appellant

Association that they have to carry out their industrial activities

without polluting the water. A large number of farmers have

suffered because of the pollution caused by them. They could

not cultivate any crop in the said land. The committee had made

a complete survey and assessed the loss and identified the

families which are entitled to compensation. This Court only

stayed the operation of the direction of the High Court to the

extent that the units of the members of the appellant Association

would be closed on 31st July, 2007. The said interim order has

been extended from time to time. None of the other directions

have been interfered with. A period of more than two and a half


46

year has been passed. Many steps have been taken but the

Association has to ensure the compliance of the orders passed

by the High Court fully and in order to do, it is desirable that the

Association be giving three months time to ensure compliance

of directions to make the CETPs functional and pay the balance

amount for cleaning the dam and river and meet the

compensation to the adversely affected persons within a period

of three months from today. The Pollution Control Board is

directed to ensure that no pollution is caused, giving strict

adherence, to the statutory provisions.

✥ ✥ ✥ ✥ ✥


47

POETRY SECTION

/kjrh dSls gkWQ jgh gS/kjrh dSls gkWQ jgh gS/kjrh dSls gkWQ jgh gS/kjrh dSls gkWQ jgh gS/kjrh dSls gkWQ jgh gS

Jh ohjsUnz xks;y*

rksM+rs jgs mí.Mrk ls]o{k] >kfM+;kW] ikS/ks

fdruk fpYykrs gksaxs nnZ lsviuh xnZu ij tjk ;k cks>

fiyfiyk nsrk gSA/kjk rks fdruk gh mBkrh gS

Tkjk lh phj&QkM+ djokuh gksRkks igys csgks”k gksrk gS

ij ckgks”k [kksnrk gS] dkVrk gSdHkh lqu ugh ik;knnZ ls Hkjh fpYykgVsass

dHkh eglwl ugh dj ik;kcks> ls dkWirh ygjsa

dSls gkWQ&gkWQ ds pyrh gSa/kjk D;k f”kdk;r djrh gSlkspks] dksbZ rqEgkjs mij

xanxh Qsad jgk gSfdlh us Vuksa dwM+k

rqEgkjs mij Mky fn;k gSlkspks] dksbZ rqEgkjk xyk dkV jgk gSlkspks] dksbZ rqEgkjh Nkrh QkM+ jgk gS

*vfrfjDr ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh”k] jksfg.kh ftyk U;k;ky;] fnYyh


48

lkspks] dksbZ rqEgkjs mij cks> ykn jgk gSfdruh vV~Vkfydk;sa] VkWoj] e”khusa] iqy

dgkW rd py ikvksxsfdruh nwj rd

/kM+/kM+krh jsyxkfM+;kWph[krs&fpYykrs foeku

;s yxkrkj c<+rh tula[;kfdruk <ks ikvksxs

lkspks]rqEgkjh f”kjkvksa esadksbZ ck:nh lqjax yxk ns

psjusfcy ls ysdj fgjksf”kek vkSj ukxklkdh rddgkW&dgkW ugh QSyk;k tgj

fdl fdl dh ugh dh nwf’kr lkWlsabruk dpjk ysdj

D;k ckjh”k ns ldrs gks \D;k calr ns ldrs gks \

D;k dksbZ Qwy cuk ldrs gks \D;k dksbZ Qwy f[kyk ldrs gks \lkspks] bruk viekfur gksdjD;k /kkj.k dj ldrs gks \

lkspks brus ijek.kq vk/kkr lgdjbrus fo”o;q) >sydj

fQj ls [kM+s gks ldrs gksdgkW ls ykvksxs bruh lgu”khyrk\tjk&tjk lh ckr ij HkM+d tkrs gks

canwds fudkyrs gksxksfy;kW pykrs gksAcnkZ”r ugh rqEgsa


49

xSj /keZ] xSj vkpkj fopkjviuh fopkj/kkjk QSykus dksNy cy vkrad viukrs gks

/kjk D;k dgrh gS \nsxh txg fdlh ,d tkfr dksfdlh ,d /keZ dks] fopkj dks

vxj ugh gks ldrs /kjkrks cus jgks tjk

;kfu eD[kh] ePNj{k.k Hkj dk thou

brus esa vkleku dks lh<+h u yxkvkscgqr mWpk mM+us dks vius ia[k u QSykvks

cgqr nwj tk ldrs gks [;kyksa esaij lkeuk djks ;FkkFkZ ds lokyksa ls

dksf”k”k djks cuus dh bulkWuk fd gSokW

cjrks de ls de ikuh]gok vkSj /kjkD;ksafd rqe dqN Hkh cuk ugh ldrs[kk&ih rks ldrs gks] dek ugh ldrs

ftruk Hkksxksxs demrus gYds gks tkvksxs

vQlksl u gksxk vius vkus dknq[k u gksxk vius tkus dk

ys pysaxh gok,W gkSys ls nqykjrhufn;kW Hkh ys pysaxh /khjs ls laHkkyrhA

✥ ✥ ✥ ✥ ✥


50

euhIyk aVeuhIyk aVeuhIyk aVeuhIyk aVeuhIyk aV

Jh xkSre euu*

rqEgkjs NksVs uUgsa gjs iRrksa dks]ikuh ls iksaN]

gWlh rqEgkjh ikdjeqLdjkus yxk eSaArqEgsa ckW; dj

fudy x;k n¶rj dksA“kke dks eqykdkr gqbZ

Rkks rqEgsa ik;k]/kcjk;k&eqj>k;kA/kq,a dh dkyd ikys]iRrksa ij xSl ds Nkys]

vthc ,d }Un]vkrh Fkh iSVªksy dh xa/kA

I;kj ls eSus rqEgsafQj lEHkkyk]

fNM+dk ikuh vkSj]gVk;k tky dkykA

ij eSa] rqEgsa]cpkmW dSls]

bl /kwfey vkoj.k ls]vkSj cnyrs okrkoj.k lsA

✥ ✥ ✥ ✥ ✥

*egkuxj naMkf/kdkjh@ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh] fnYyh fof/kd lsok,a izkf/kdj.k


51

izd`fr dh iqdkjizd`fr dh iqdkjizd`fr dh iqdkjizd`fr dh iqdkjizd`fr dh iqdkj

Jherh ehuk{kh ’kekZ*

tx esa eph gS gkgkdkj]izdfr dh lquks iqdkjA

er dkVks gjs & Hkjs o{kksa dksD;ksafd ;gh gS ekuo thou dk vk/kkjA

/kjrh dgs iqdkj ds] er nksgu djks mldk]thou dks cpkuk gS rks vknj djks izdfr dkA

vU;Fkk lc iNrkvksxs]vius cPpksa ds fy, BaMh Nkag dgka ls ykvksxsA

nwf’kr vxj ikuh gksxkrks ekuo “kjhj chekfj;ksa dk ?kj gksxkA

LoLFk ru xj u gksxk]Rkks eu izlUu dSls gksxkA

;fn pkgrs gks LoLFk ru & eu j[kukikuh dks LoPN gS j[kukA

isM+ yxkvks izdfr dks cpkvksnwf’kr inkFkZ ikuh esa u feykvksA

okguks dk djks lnqi;ksx]lcdk gksxk feydj lg;ksxA

nwf’kr gok u jg ik,xh]Hkkoh ih<+h iqu% pgpgk,xhA

✥ ✥ ✥ ✥ ✥

*fgUnh vuqoknd] fnYyh fof/kd lsok,a izkf/kdj.k


52

Ik;k Zoj.kIk;k Zoj.kIk;k Zoj.kIk;k Zoj.kIk;k Zoj.k

Jherh xqjizhr dkSj*

i;kZoj.k dh ;gh iqdkj]cl dj ekuo vR;kpkjA

ikuh tks nwf’kr djrs tkvksxs]vukt dgkW ls rqe ikvksxsA

gok tks ugh jgsxh LoPN]dSls jgsaxs cPps LoLFkA

isM+ dkV&dkV tks “kgj clsaxsa]izy; dh pisV esa lHkh QlsaxsA

pksV ;g vkSj u lg ik,xk]rks lksp ekuo rw dSls jg ik,xkA

vc ;gh gS Ik;kZoj.k dh iqdkj]izdfr gS ekuo thou dk vk/kkjA

✥ ✥ ✥ ✥ ✥

*ofj’B vk”kqfyfid] fnYyh fof/kd lsok,a izkf/kdj.k


53

LEGAL AID

LEGAL AID PROGRAMMES ORGANISEDIN DELHI FROM

JULY TO SEPTEMBER, 2009

1. SEMINAR ON RIGHT BASED APPROACH TO DISABILITY

Delhi Legal Services Authority organized four Seminars on “Right

Based Approach to Disability and Development in the Light of the UN

Convention” for the Judicial Officers during the quarter of July-September,

2009. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Judge, Supreme Court of India

was the Chief Guest in the Seminar held on 5th July, 2009 at Karkardooma

Courts, Delhi. His Lordship also inaugurated the Office of District Legal

Services Committee, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Hon’ble Mr. Justice

R. V. Raveendran, Judge, Supreme Court of India inaugurated the

Seminar held on 19th July, 2009 at Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in the presence

of Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Shah, as Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi &

Hon’ble Patron-in-Chief, DLSA and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal,

as Judge, High Court of Delhi & Executive Chairman, DLSA. Hon’ble Mr.

Justice G.S. Sistani, Judge, High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice

J.R. Midha, Judge, High Court of Delhi inaugurated the seminar on 2nd

August, 2009 at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Aruna

Suresh, Judge, High Court of Delhi graced the seminar held on 6th

September, 2009 at Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

2. INTERNSHIP PROGRAMME FOR LAW STUDENTS

In a major initiative, Delhi Legal Services Authority introduced Summer

and Winter Internship programme for law students with the objective to

draw upon their enthusiasm, energy and vast resources for reaching

out entitlements to peripheral and vulnerable sections of the society.

Delhi Legal Services Authority imparted internship to 13 law students

from National Law School University of Delhi conducted Legal Literacy

PROGRAMMES


54

Camps in Jails, Slum & Rural Areas of Delhi from 1st July to 11th July,

2009 under Summer Internship Programme – June, 2009 and generated

awareness of legal rights and welfare schemes framed by Government

of NCT of Delhi. Law interns were also involved in a Project of the DLSA

with Home Department of Delhi Government in respect of Grant of Parole

etc. to Prisoners.

Law Interns from various Law Schools like Amity Law School, VIPS,

Law Faculty of Delhi University conducted Legal Literacy Camps in Tihar

Jail, Slum and Rural Areas of Delhi under Summer Internship Programme

– July, 2009.

3. CONTACTING & COUNSELLING RAPE VICTIMS

Delhi Legal Services Authority deputed social workers/ para-legal

workers to establish contact with the rape victim immediately on receipt

of information of commission of the offence from the police within a

week of commission of the offence on being intimated by police.

Counsellors of DLSA provided moral and legal support in 6 cases relating

to offence of rape from July-September, 2009 with special emphasis on

the rehabilitation of the victims.

4. 7th,8th,9th,10th,11th& 12th CONTINUOUS MATRIMONIAL LOKADALAT

Delhi Legal Services Authority organized 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th&

12th Continuous Matrimonial Lok Adalat on 5th July, 19th July, 2nd August,

16th August, 6th September and 20th September, 2009 in all the District

Court Complexes of Delhi. The response to the Lok Adalat was quite

encouraging and high percentage of participation was recorded. In the

said Lok Adalats, 45 cases out of 207 cases relating to Domestic Violence

and Maintenance were amiably resolved.


55

5. 8th, 9th & 10th CONTINUOUS MACT LOK ADALAT

Delhi Legal Services Authority organized 8th, 9th & 10th Continuous

MACT Lok Adalat on 11th July, 8th August & 12th September, 2009 in all

the District Court Complexes in which cases relating to public as well

as private insurance companies were taken up. In the said Lok Adalats,

197 cases were mutually settled and Awards worth Rs. 3,87,70,500/-

were passed in favour of the claimants.

6. 3rd & 4th LOK ADALAT FOR RESOLUTION OF COMPOUNDABLECRIMINAL CASES AT PRE-LITIGATION STAGE

Delhi Legal Services Authority organized 3rd and 4th Lok Adalat of

Criminal Compoundable Offences under ADR Mechanisam on 19th July

& 20th September, 2009 respectively at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi & Patiala

House Courts respectively, in which 30 cases disclosing commission

of cognizable & compoundable offences were settled at pre-litigation

stage.

7. PRE-LITIGATIVE LOK ADALAT FOR PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS

Delhi Legal Services Authority organized Lok Adalats for cases

relating to recovery of loan of Public Sector Banks on 26th July & 27th

September, 2009 for cases relating to State Bank of India, Canara Bank,

Bank of Baroda and Union Bank of India in which 64 cases were settled

and Award worth Rs. 23,14,810/- were passed.

8. PRE-LITIGATIVE LOK ADALAT FOR PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS

Delhi Legal Services Authority organized pre-litigative Lok Adalat for

Private Sector Banks on 5th July, 19th July, 2nd August, 9th August, 16th

August, 30th August, 20th September and 27th September, 2009 for cases

relating to Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Tata Motors Limited,

ICICI Bank Limited, HSBC Bank, HDFC Bank & ABN Amro Bank. In the

said Lok Adalat, 81 cases related to recovery of loan were settled and

Awards worth Rs. 32,98,282/- were passed.


56

9. 1st EVER LOK ADALAT FOR MINORITY COMMUNITIES

Delhi Legal Services Authority organised 1st Ever Lok Adalat for the

notified Minority Communities organized on 23rd August, 2009 in Tis Hazari

Courts & Karkardooma Courts in which 108 cases settled and award

worth Rs. 49,22,118/- passed.

10. 94 CHILD LABOURERS RESCUED

Delhi Legal Services Authority participated in the rescue of 94 children

between the age group of 7 to 14 years on 20th August, 2009 from Zari

units in Usmanpur, Northeast, Delhi in a raid organized in association

with Bachpan Bachao Andolan (under the scheme announced by Hon’ble

the Chief Justice of India, on 16th May, 2009) and the Labour Department

& Delhi Police.

11. AWARENESS PROGRAMME

Awareness Programme at YWCA Delhi, for a target group of women

para legal workers from all over India, on 29th August, 2009 to familiarize

them with the statutory provisions relating to legal aid and their scope

and the activities of Delhi Legal Services Authority

12. AWARENESS PROGRAMME ON PLEA BARGAINING

Delhi Legal Services Authority organised Awareness & Sensitization

Programme on Plea Bargaining for Legal Aid Lawyers organized on 24th,

25th, 26th, 27th & 28th August, 2009 at Tis Hazari Courts and Karkardooma

Courts, Rohini Courts, Dwarka Courts and Patiala House Courts

respectively.

13. ORIENTATION-CUM-TRAINING PROGRAMME ON PLEABARGAINING

Delhi Legal Services Authority organised Orientation-cum-Training

Programme on Plea Bargaining for legal aid counsel selected by DLSA


57

as Resource Persons to generate awareness of Plea Bargaining among

under trial prisoners conducted on 2nd September, 2009 from 2:30 to

4:00 PM at Conference Hall, Central Office, Delhi Legal Services

Authority, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

14. AWARENESS PROGRAMME ON PLEA BARGAINING FORUNDERTRIAL PRISONERS

Delhi Legal Services Authority organised an Awareness Programmes

on Plea Bargaining for under trial prisoners organized on 5th September,

2009 in all the Jails at Tihar Jail & Rohini Jail. Secretaries of District

Legal Services Committees along with trained legal aid counsel

encouraged under trial prisoners to avail of Plea Bargaining in their

pending cases.

15. AWARENESS PROGRAMMEON ON PLEA BARGAINING FORDRIVERS

Delhi Legal Services Authority organised Awareness & Sensitization

Programme on Plea Bargaining for Drivers of Auto Rickshaws and TSR

held on 12th September, 17th September and 25th September, 2009 at

Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, Inderpuri Scooter Stand, Todapur Road, Inderpuri,

New Delhi and Taxi Auto Stand, Paharganj, New Delhi respectively.

16. CERTIFICATES AWARDED

Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Shah, as Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi

and Patron-in-Chief, Delhi Legal Services Authority, Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Mukul Mudgal, as Judge, High Court of Delhi and Executive Chairman,

Delhi Legal Services Authority & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur,

Judge, High Court of Delhi and Chairman, Delhi High Court Legal

Services Committee presented certificates on 25th September, 2009 to

50 law interns who had undergone internship with Delhi Legal Services

Authority in June/June, 2009 under Summer Internship Programme, 2009.

✥ ✥ ✥ ✥ ✥

Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Shah, as Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi and Patron-in-Chief, DLSA presenting certificate to Law Intern on 25th September, 2009 also seen inthe picture Ms. Asha Menon. Ld. Member Secretary, DLSA

Law interns in Certificate Distribution ceremony held on 25th September, 2009 at HighCourt of Delhi

(Seen in the photograph): Shri G.P. Mittal, District Judge-1 & Sessions Judge; Hon’ble Ms. Justice Aruna Suresh,Judge, High Court of Delhi; Ms. Pratibha Rani, District Judge-III & Sessions Judge and Ms. Asha Menon, Ld. MemberSecretary, DLSA during the programme on “Right Based Approach to Disability & Development in the Light of the UNConvention” held on 6th September, 2009 at Tis Hazari Courts

Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha, Judge, High Court of Delhi; Ms. Shruti Pandey, Senior Consultant,Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ms. Debashree Mukherjee,Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in the programme on “RightBased Approach to Disability & Development in the Light of the UN Convention” held on2nd August, 2009 at Conference Hall, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi

Shri Sanjeev Jain, Shri Gulshan Kumar, Shri S.K. Gupta and Shri Sanjay Sharma in theprogrammed on “Right Based Approach to Disability & Development in the Light ofthe UN Convention” held on 2nd August, 2009 at Conference Hall, Karkardooma CourtsComplex, Delhi

Dr. Achal Bhagat, Director, Saarthac speaking at a Conference at “Right BasedApproach to Disability & Development in the Light of the UN Convention” for theJudicial Officers held on 5th July, 2009 at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Seen in thepicture is Hon’ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, Judge, High Court of Delhi


61

PRESS CLIPPING SECTION

SUMMER INTERNSHIPPROGRAMME 2009

INDIAN EXPRESS07.07.2009

RESCUE OF CHILDLABOURERS

DAINIK JAGRAN01.07.2009


62

LOK ADALAT RELATED TO BANK RECOVERYMATTERSTHE HINDU10.07.2009

SPECIAL BENCHES SET UP BY HIGH COURTTO CLEAR PENDING CRIMINAL CASES

NAI DUNIYA10.07.2009


63

THE TIMES OF INDIA10.07.2009


THE PIONEER10.07.2009


64

MAHAMEDHA12.07.2009

RASHTRIYA SAHARA15.07.2009

LOK ADALAT RELATED TO BANK RECOVERYMATTERS

PAROLE FOR TIHAR INMATES


THE INDIAN EXPRESS20.08.2009


65

RESCUE OF CHILD LABOURERS


1ST EVER LOK ADALAT FOR NOTIFIEDMINORITY COMMUNITIES



66

LOK ADALAT RELATED TO COMPOUNDABLE& PRE-LITIGATIVE MATTERS


MISSING CHILDRENDAINIK JAGRAN

27.08.2009


67

AWARNESS PROGRAMME ON PLEABARGAINING

DAINIK JAGRAN13.09.2009

THE HINDU14.09.2009


68


THE INDIAN EXPRESS22.09.2009

MISSING CHILDREN

DISTRIBUTION OF CERTIFICATES TO LAWINTERNS

THE HINDU26.09.2009


69

LEGAL AID BENEFICIARIES OF DELHI LEGAL SERVICESAUTHORITY FOR THE QUARTER

JULY TO SEPTEMBER, 2009

INFORMATION SECTIONSTATISTICAL

MONTH SC ST OBC Women Children In Handi- General Others TotalCustody capped

July 47 03 02 428 02 389 04 196 15 1086

August 50 - 01 317 01 279 03 148 14 813

September 42 02 02 298 02 508 02 257 06 1119

TOTAL 139 05 05 1043 05 1176 09 601 35 3018

STATISTICAL INFORMATION OF LEGAL AID BENEFICIARIES/INMATES AVAILED LEGAL AID THROUGH LEGAL AID CENTRE

AT TIHAR JAIL COURTS COMPLEX FOR THE QUARTERJULY TO SEPTEMBER, 2009

No. of Beneficiaries 18+09+16=43

Note:- 108+104+84=296 Petitions of Jail inmates have been forwarded to DelhiHigh Court Legal Services Committee during July to September, 2009.


70

STATISTICAL INFORMATION OF DISPOSAL OF CASES IN LOKADALAT FOR THE QUARTER JULY TO SEPTEMBER, 2009

Name of the No. of Sittings No. of cases No. of cases AmountOrganization taken up disposed of

D.D.A (PLA) 12 569 17

NDPL/BSES(PLA) 74 3361 912

Daily Lok Adalat 13 460 82

Continuous MACT 21 741 197 Rs. 3,87,70,500/-Lok Adalat

Bank Recovery Matters 67 729 503 Rs. 1,82,53,556/-(Pre-litigative)

Continuous Matrimonial 21 207 45Lok Adalat

Crl. Compoundable 02 53 30offence under ADRmechanism

Lok Adalat pertaining 03 49 34 Rs. 14,52,470/-to minority community(Pre-litigative)

Lok Adalat pertaining 09 156 74 Rs. 34,69,648/-to minority community(Post-litigative)

Total 222 6325 1894

Visits of Mobile Van

The Interns (77) from various Law Colleges/Universities visited variousplaces including NGOs, Tihar Jail, Mediation and Conciliation Centre atShaheed Bhagat Singh Place, Gole Market and Tribunals during SummerVacation Interns Training Programme from July 6 to July 31 for legalawareness as well as apprising themselves of the procedures followedin the above institutions.


71

STA

TIS

TIC

AL

IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

IN

RE

SP

EC

T O

F C

AS

ES

SE

TT

LE

D T

HR

OU

GH

CO

UN

SE

LL

ING

& C

ON

CIL

IAT

ION

/ME

DIA

TIO

N F

OR

TH

E Q

UA

RT

ER

JULY

TO

SE

PT

EM

BE

R,

2009

Exc

lusi

vely

by

Hig

h C

ou

rtE

xclu

sive

ly b

yE

xclu

sive

ly b

y Ta

luk

Co

un

se

llin

g a

nd

Gra

nd

To

tal

Sta

te L

egal

Leg

al S

erv

ice

sD

istr

ict

Leg

alL

egal

Ser

vice

Co

nci

liat

ion

(Co

l.1 t

o 5

)S

erv

ice

sC

om

mit

tee

Se

rvic

es

Co

mm

itte

es

Ce

nte

rsA

uth

ori

tyA

uth

ori

ty(T

IZ H

AZ

AR

I + K

KD

.)(G

ole

Mar

ket+

PH

C)

(RO

HIN

I)*

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Pre

Ref

erre

dP

reR

efer

red

Pre

Ref

erre

dP

reR

efer

red

Pre

Ref

erre

dP

re R

efer

red

liti

gat

ion

by

the

liti

gat

ion

by

the

liti

gat

ion

by

the

liti

gat

ion

by

the

liti

gat

ion

by

the

liti

gat

ion

by

the

cou

rtco

urt

cou

rtco

urt

cou

rtco

urt

Num

ber

15

8+

34

70

1+

Nil

Nil

75

Nil

Nil

58

+2

3N

il4

51

Nil

10

37

76

of

case

s=

50

5=

01

=8

1re

ceiv

ed

Num

ber

23

+3

41

Nil

03

Nil

Nil

Nil

40

+0

7N

il2

38

Nil

65

2N

ilo

f ca

ses

=3

64

=4

7se

ttle

d

*The

med

iatio

n w

ork

is b

eing

loo

ked

afte

r by

Dis

tric

t C

ourt

fro

m M

ay,

2009

Documents

FROM THE CHAIRMAN’S DESKdslsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/NK(July-Sept.09).pdf · The aftermath of the Bhopal Gas Leak tragedy still remains the most important trigger for the