http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8

PETITIONER:

SUBHASH KUMAR

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/01/1991

BENCH:

SINGH, K.N. (J)

BENCH:

SINGH, K.N. (J)

OJHA, N.D. (J)

CITATION:

1991 AIR 420 1991 SCR (1) 5

1991 SCC (1) 598 JT 1991 (1) 77

1991 SCALE (1)8

ACT:

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1974:

Sections 17, 24, 25 and 26.

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21-Right to live

includes right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air-

A citizen has a right to invoke Article 32 for removing

pollution.

Article 32- Writ petition in public interest-Allegation

that West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel Company

are polluting the river Bokaro by discharging slurry from

their washeries into the river-No material to substantiate

the allegations-Held petition is not in public interest but

for personal interest.

Public Interest Litigation-Should be resorted to by a

person genuinely interested in the protection of society-

Personal interest cannot be enforced in the garb of public

interest litigation-Entertainment of petitions satisfying

personal grudge is abuse of process of the Court Duty of the

court is to discourage such petitions.

HEADNOTE:

The petitioner filed a writ petition in this court by

way of public interest litigation alleging that the

respondents, West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel

Company (TISCO) were polluting the river Bokaro by

discharging surplus waste in the form of sludge/slurry as

effluent from their washeries into river making the river

water unfit for drinking and irrigation purposes thereby

causing risk to the health of the people; the State of Bihar

and the State Pollution Control Board have failed to take

appropriate steps for prevention of the pollution and

instead the State of Bihar has granted leases on payment of

royalty to various persons for collection of slurry.

Accordingly the petitioner prayed for directions to the

respondents to take immediate steps prohibiting the

pollution of the river and to take legal action against

TISCO under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)

Act, 1974. The petitioner also claimed interim relief from

this Court that he should be permitted to collect

sludge/slurry flowing out of washeries of the respondents.

6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8

The respondents contested the petition denying the

petitioner's allegations. Bihar State Pollution Board

asserted that directions have been issued to the Bokaro

Collieries to take effective steps for improving the quality

of the effluent going into the river Bokaro and that the

TISCO Company has been granted permission to discharge their

effluents from their outlets in accordance with sections 25

and 26 of the 1974 Act. On behalf of TISCO and the Bokaro

Collieries it was contended that all effective steps have

been taken to prevent the pollution and they have complied

with the instructions of the State Pollution Board.

By an order dated 13.12.1990, this Court dismissed the

writ petition with costs.

Giving reasons for dismissal of the petition, this

Court,

HELD: 1. Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of

Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Apex Court. It

provides for an extra-ordinary remedy to safeguard the

fundamental rights of a citizen. Right to life is a

fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it

includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and

air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or

impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a

citizen has right to have recourse to Article 32 of the

Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air

which may be detrimental to the quality of life. A petition

under Article 32 for the prevention of pollution is

maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by

a group of social workers or journalists. But recourse to

proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution should be

taken by person genuinely interested in the protection of

society on behalf of the community. Public interest

litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons

to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such

petitions under Article 32 are entertained it would amount

to abuse of process of the Court, preventing speedy remedy

to other genuine petitioners from this Court. Personal

interest cannot be enforced through the process of this

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a

public interest litigation. Public interest litigation

contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement

of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community

which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on

account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A

person invoking the jurisdiction of this Curt under Article

32 must approach this Court for the vindication of the

fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the

purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It

is duty of this Court to

7

discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of

justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous

litigants by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of

this Court for personal matters under the garb of the

public interest litigation. [13C-H; 14A]

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, [1984] 2 SCR

67; Sachindanand Pandey v. State of West Begal, [1987] 2 SCC

295; Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.,

[1989] Suppl. 1 SCC 251; Chetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh

Samiti v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1990] 4 SCC 449, referred

to.

2. The present petition is not filed in public

interest instead the petition has been made by the

petitioner in his own interest. Infact there is intrinsic

evidence in the petition itself that the primary purpose of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8

filing this petition is not to serve any public interest

instead it is in self-interest. The petitioner has been

purchasing slurry from the respondents for the last several

years. With the passage of time he wanted more and more

slurry but the Company refused to accept his request. He

removed the Company's slurry in an unauthorised manner for

which criminal cases are pending against him and his

brother. Since the respondent company refused to sell

additional slurry he entertained a grudge against the

company and in order to feed fat his personal grudge he

resorted to several proceedings against the company

including the present one. The prayer for the interim

relief made by the petitioner i.e. permitting him to

arrest/collect sludge/slurry flowing out of the washeries of

the respondents with a direction to the State of Bihar, its

officers and other authorities for not preventing him from

collecting the sludge/slurry and transporting the same also

collecting the sludge/slurry and transporting the same

clearly indicates that he is interested in collecting the

slurry and transporting the same for the purposes of his

business. Therefore, there is no good reason to accept the

petitioner's allegation that the water of the river Bokaro

is being polluted by the discharge of sludge or slurry into

it form the washeries of the respondent-company. On the

other hand it is evident from records that the State

Pollution Control Board has taken effective steps to check

the pollution. [14B;12F-G]

Kundori Labours Cooperative Society Ltd. & etc. etc. v.

State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1986 Patna 242; Bharat Cokin Coal

Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors. [1990] 3 SCR 744= Judgments

Today, vol. 3, 1990 SCC 533, referred to.

JUDGMENT:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 381 of

1998.

8

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

S.K. Sinha for the Petitioner.

D. Goburdhan, Ms. A. Subhashini, K.K. Lahiri, Ms. Lira

Goswami and D.N. Misra for the Respondents.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

SINGH,J. We heard the arguments in detail on 13.12.

1990 and dismissed the petition with costs amounting to Rs.

5,000 with the direction that the reasons shall be delivered

later on. We are, accordingly, delivering our reasons.

This petition is under Article 32 of the Constitution

by Subhash Kumar for the issue of a writ or direction

directing the director of Collieries, West Bokaro Collieries

at Ghatotand, District Hazaribagh in the State of Bihar and

the Tata from & Steel Co. Ltd. to stop forthwith discharge

of slurry/sludge from its washeries at Ghatotand in the

District of Hazaribagh into Bokaro river. This petition is

by way of public interest litigation for preventing the

pollution of the Bokaro river water from the sludge/slurry

discharged form the washeries of the Tata Iron & Steel Co.

Ltd. The petitioner has alleged that the Parliament has

enacted the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,

1974 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') providing for

the prevention and control of water pollution and the

maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water, for the

establishment of Board for the prevention and control of

water pollution. Under the provisions of the Act the State

Pollution Control Board constituted to carry out functions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8

prescribed under Section 17 of the Act which among other

things provide that the Board shall inspect sewage or trade

effluents and plants for the treatment of sewage and trade

effluents and to review plans, specifications or other data

set up for the treatment of water and to lay down standards

to be complied with by the persons while causing discharge

of sewage or sullage. Section 24 of the Act provides that

no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous,

noxious or polluting matter to enter into any stream or

well, which may lead to a substantial aggravation of

pollution. The petitioner has asserted that Tata Iron and

Steel Co-respondent No.5 carries on mining operation in coal

mines/washeries in the town of Jamshedpur. These coal mines

and collieries are known as West Bokaro Collieries and the

Collieries have two coal washeries where the coal after its

extraction from the mines is brought and broken into graded

pieces and there-

9

after it is processed for the purpose of reducing its ash

contents. A chemical process is carried out which is known

as `froth floatation process'. Under this process the

graded coal is mixed with diesel oil, pine oil and many

other chemical ingredients and thereafter it is washed with

the lacs of gallons of water. The end water is washed coal

with reduced quantity of ash content fit for high graded

metallurgical process for the purposes of manufacture of

steel. In the process of washing large quantity of water is

discharged through pipes which carry the discharged water to

storage ponds constructed for the purpose of retaining the

slurry. Along with the discharged water, small particles of

coal are carried away to the pond where the coal particles

settle down on the surface of the pond, and the same is

collected after the pond is de-watered. The coal particles

which are carried away by the water is called the slurry

which is ash free, it contains fine quality of coal which is

used as fuel.

The petitioner has alleged that the surplus waste in

the form of sludge/slurry is discharged as an effluent from

the washeries into the Bokaro river which gets deposited in

the bed of the river and it also gets settled on land

including the petitioner's land bearing Plot No.170. He was

further alleged that the sludge or slurry which gets

deposited on the agricultural land, is absorbed by the land

leaving on the top a fine carbonaceous product or film on

the soil, which adversely affects the fertility of the land.

The petitioner has further alleged that the effluent in the

shape of slurry is flown into the Bokaro river which is

carried out by the river water to the distant places

polluting the river water as a result of which the river

water is not fit for drinking purposes nor it is fit for

irrigation purposes. The continuous discharge of slurry in

heavy quantity by the Tata Iron & Steel Co. from its

washeries posing risks to the health of people living in the

surrounding areas and as a result of such discharge the

problem of pure drinking water has became acute. The

petitioner has asserted that inspite of several

representations, the State of Bihar and State Pollution

Control Board have failed to take any action against the

Company instead they have permitted the pollution of the

river water. He has further averred that the State of Bihar

instead of taking any action against the Company has been

granting leases on payment of royalty to various persons

for the collection of slurry. He has, accordingly, claimed

relief for issue of direction directing the respondents

which include the State of Bihar, the Bihar Pollution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8

Control Board, Union of India and Tata Iron & Steel Co. to

take immediate steps prohibiting the pollution of Bokaro

river water from the discharge of slurry into the Bokaro

river and to take further action under provisions of the Act

against the Tata Iron & Steel Co.

10

The respondents have contested the petition and

counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the

respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5-State of Bihar, State Pollution

Board, Directors of Collieries and Tata Iron & Steel Co.

Ltd. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the

respondents, the petitioner's main allegation that the

sludge/slurry is being discharged into the river Bokaro

causing pollution to the water and the land and that the

Bihar State Pollution Board has not taken steps to prevent

the same is denied. In the counter-affidavit filed on

behalf of the Bihar State Pollution Board it is asserted

that the Tata Iron & Steel Co. operates open case and

underground mining. The Company in accordance to Sections

25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention Control of Pollution)

Act, 1974 applied for sanction from the Board of discharge

their effluent from their outlets. The Board before

granting sanction analysed their effluent which was being

watched constantly and monitored to see that the discharges

does not affect the water quality of the Bokaro river

adversely. In order to prevent the pollution the Board

issued direction to the Director of the Collieries to take

effective steps for improving the quality of the effluent

going into the Bokaro river. The State Pollution Board

imposed conditions requiring the Company to construct two

settling tanks for settlement of solids and rewashing the

same. The Board directed for the regular samples being

taken and tested for suspended solids and for the

communication of the results of the tests to the Board each

month. The State Board has asserted that the Company has

constructed four ponds ensuring more storing capacity of

effluent. The Pollution Board has been monitoring the

effluent. It is further stated that on the receipt of the

notice of the instant writ petition the Board carried out an

inspection of the settling tanks regarding the treatment of

the effluent from the washeries on 20th June, 1988. On

inspection it was found that all the four settling tanks had

already been completed and work for further strengthening of

the embankment of the tanks was in progress, and there was

no discharge of effluent from the washeries into river

Bokaro except that there was negligible seepage from the

embankment. It is further stated that the Board considered

all the aspects and for further improvement it directed the

management of the collieries for removal of the settle

slurry from the tanks. The Board has directed that the

washeries shall perform desludging of the settling tanks at

regular intervals to achieve the proper required retention

time for the separation of solids and to achieve discharge

of effluents within the standards prescribed by the Board.

It is further asserted that at present there is no discharge

from any of the tanks of the Bokaro river and there is no

question of pollution of the river water of affecting the

fertility of land. In their affidavits files on behalf of

the respondent-

11

Nos. 4 and 5, they have also denied the allegations made in

the petition. They have asserted that the effective steps

have been taken to prevent the flow of the water discharge

from the washeries into the river Bokaro. it is stated that

infact river Bokaro remains dry during 9 months in a year

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8

and the question of pollution of water by discharge of

slurry into the river does not arise. However, the

management of the washeries have constructed from different

ponds to store the slurry. The slurry which settles in the

pounds is collected for sale. The slurry contains highly

carbonaceous materials and it is considered very valuable

for the purpose of fuel as the ash contents are almost nil

in the coal particles found in the slurry. Since, it has

high market value, the Company would not like it to go in

the river water. The Company has taken effective steps to

ascertain that no slurry escapes from its ponds at the

slurry is highly valuable. The Company has been following

the directions issued by the State Pollution Control Board

constituted under the 1974 Act.

On the facts as appearing from the pleadings and the

specific averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed

on behalf of the State Pollution Control Board of Bihar,

prima facie we do not find any good reason to accept the

petitioner's allegation that the water of the river Bokaro

is being polluted by the discharged of sludge or slurry into

it from the washeries of the respondent-company. On the

other hand we find that the State Pollution Control Board

has taken effective steps to check the pollution. We do not

consider it necessary to delve into greater detail as the

present petition does not appear to have been filed in

public interest instead the petition has been made by the

petitioner in his own interest.

On a perusal of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf

of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 it appears that the

petitioner has been purchasing slurry from the respondent

Nos. 4 and 5 for the last several years. With the passage

of time he wanted more and more slurry, but the respondent-

company refused to accept his request. The petitioner is an

influential businessman, he had obtained a licence for coal

trading, he tried to put pressure through various sources on

the respondent-company for supplying him more quantity of

slurry but when the Company refused to succumb to the

pressure, he started harassing the Company. He removed the

Company's slurry in an unauthorised manner for which a

Criminal Case No., 173 of 1987 under Sections 379 and 411 of

the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Essential

Commodities Act was registered against the petitioner and

Pradip Kumar his brother at Police Station Mandu, which is

pending before-

12

the Sub-Judge, Hazaribagh. One Shri Jugal Kishore Jayaswal

also filed a criminal complaint under Section 379 and 411 of

the IPC against the petitioner and his brother Pradip Kumar

in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Hazaribagh, which is also pending before the Court of

Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class Hazaribagh. The petitioner

initiated several proceedings before the High Court of Patna

under Article 226 of the constitution for permitting him to

collect slurry from the Raiyati land. These petitions were

dismissed on the ground of existence of dispute relating to

the title of the land. The petitioner filed a writ petition

C.W.J.C. No. 887 of 199o in the High Court of Patna for

taking action against the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh

for implementing the Full Bench judgment of the Patna High

Court in Kundori Labours Cooperative Society Ltd. & etc.

etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1986 Patna 242 wherein it

was held that the slurry was neither coal nor mineral

instead it was an industrial waste of coal mine, not subject

to the provisions of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and

Development) Act, 1957. Consequently the collection of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8

slurry which escaped from the washeries could be settled by

the State Government with any person without obtaining the

sanction of the Central Government. The petitioner has been

contending before the High Court that the slurry which was

discharged from washeries did not belong to the Company and

he was entitled to collect the same. Since the respondent-

company prevented the petitioner from collecting slurry from

its land and as it further refused to sell any additional

quantity of slurry to him, he entertained grudge against

the respondent-company. In order to feed fat his personal

grudge he has taken several proceedings against the

respondent-company including the present proceedings. These

facts are quite apparent from the pleadings of the parties

and the documents placed before the Court. Infact,there is

intrinsic evidence in the petition itself that the primary

purpose of filling this petition is not to serve any public

interest instead it is in self-interest as would be clear

from the prayer made by the petitioner in the interim stay

application. The petitioner claim interim relief from this

Court permitting him to arrest/collect sludge/slurry flowing

out of the washeries of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and

with a direction to the State of Bihar, its officers and

other authorities for not preventing him from collecting

the sludge/slurry and transporting the same. The prayer for

the interim relief made by the petitioner clearly indicates

that he is interested in collecting the slurry and

transporting the same for the purposes of his business. As

already state a Full Bench of the Patna High Court held

that the slurry was not coal and the provisions of the

Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act,

1957 were not applicable, the State Government was tree to

settle the same-

13

and the Tata Steel & Iron Co. had no right to collect

the slurry which escaped from its washeries. The

respondent-company filed an appeal before this Court.

During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the

petitioner filed the present petition. The appeal

preferred by the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and Bharat

Coking Coal Ltd. was allowed by this Court and judgment

of Patna High Court was set aside. The judgment of this

Court is reported in Judgments today Vol. 3 1990 SC 533

wherein it has been held that the slurry/coal deposited on

any and continues to be coal and the State Government has no

authority in law to deal with the same and the slurry

deposited on the Company's land belongs to the Company and

no other person had authority to collect the same.

Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of

Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Apex Court. It

provides for an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the

Fundamental Rights of a citizen. Right to live is a

fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution and it

includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and

air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or

impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a

citizen has right to have recourse to Art, 32 of the

Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air

which may be detrimental to the quality of life. A petition

under Art. 32 for the prevention of pollution is

maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by

a group of social workers or journalists. But recourse to

preceeding under Art. 32 of the Constitution should be taken

by a person genuinely interested in the protection of

society on behalf of the community. Public interest

litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body or person

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8

to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. if such

petitions under Article 32, are entertained it would amount

to abuse of process of the Court, preventing speedy remedy

to other genuine petitioner from this Court. Personal

interest cannot be enforced through the process of this

Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a

public interest litigation. Public interest litigation

contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement

of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community

which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on

account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A

person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32

must approach this Court for the vindication of the

fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the

purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It

is duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to

ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or

polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for personal

matters under the garb-

14

of the public interest litigation see Bandhua Mukti Morcha

v. Union of India, [1984] 2 SCR 67; Pandey v. State of West

Bengal, [1987] 2 SCC 295 at 331; Ramsharan Autyanuprasi &

Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] Suppl. 1 SCC 251 and

Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P.

& Ors., [1990] 4 SCC 449.

In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion

that this petition has been filed not in any public interest

but for the petitioner's personal interest and for these

reasons we dismissed the same and directed that the

petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000 as costs. These costs are to

be paid to the respondent Nos. 3,4 & 5.

T.N.A. Petitions dismissed

15