Search  Upload Login Signup

Home Explore Presentation Courses PowerPoint Courses by LinkedIn Learning

24 people clipped this slide Recommended

Clip slide Taj Trapezium

Ashutosh Kumar Jha

Case study of TAJ MAHAL

aakansha26

Shriram Food Fertilizer Case

Project
ann7685

Absolute liability
Raghu Netha

1 of 12  Case study on: Ganga water

pollution
Shraddha Samant
10,088 views
MC Mehta Case (The Famous Taj Trapezium
Matter)
Share Like ... Case study of taj mahal
Aman Roy

Mohammed Haroon
 Follow

Shreya Singhal vs Union Of

   India (Case Study)
Soumya Subhankar

Published on Aug 30, 2015

MC MEHTA, PIL, TAJ TRAPEZIUM, Pollution, Air Pollution, Neeri Reports, ...

Published in: Law

 1 Comment  7 Likes  Statistics  Notes

Share your thoughts… Post

Gazi Amir Sohel , Founder at My Dream-Digital Luterchar Union at My Dream-Digital

Luterchar Union

I need to download it , how can i download it

2 years ago

 MC Mehta Case (The Famous Taj Trapezium Matter)

1. MC Mehta (Taj Trapezium matter) v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353 1(c)2010 MD HAROON
RASHEED By, MOHAMMED HAROON RASHEED B.A.LL.B (Hons.), [BSW] & [LLM] Advocate
Email ID: adv.mdharoon@gmail.com
2. Facts In this case a petition was filed the threat to the deteriorating beauty of Taj Mahal to
invoke the Air (prevention and control of pollution) Act 1981 and Water (prevention and control of
pollution) Act 1974 and Environment Protection Act 1986 for the purpose of relocation of the 292
industries to prevent emissions generated by coke or coal consuming industries having a
damaging effect on Taj and people living in the Taj Trapezium Zone, and further to direct them to
change over to natural gas as industrial fuel. According to the petitioner, the foundries,
chemical/hazardous industries and the refinery at Mathura were the major sources of damage to
the Taj. The sulphur dioxide emitted by the Mathura Refinery and the industries when combined
with Oxygen-with the aid of moisture in the atmosphere formed sulphuric acid called “Acid rain”
which had a corroding effect on the gleaming white marble. Industrial/Refinery emissions, brick-
kilns, vehicular traffic and generator-sets were primarily responsible for polluting the ambient air
around Taj Trapezium (TTZ). 2(c)2010 MD HAROON RASHEED
3. Cognizance by court Court took cognizance of this matter in January 1993. There were four
NEERI reports, two Varadharajan reports and several reports by the State pollution Control
Board. After examining all the reports and taking into consideration other material on the record,
the court had no hesitation in holding that the industries in TTZ were active contributors to the air
pollution in the said area. NEERI and Varadharajan (1978) reports had specifically
recommended the relocation of industries from the TTZ. Although the State Pollution Control
Board had placed on record list of 510 industries which were responsible for air pollution but it
confined the order only to 292 industries located and operating in Agra. 3(c)2010 MD HAROON
RASHEED
4. Principles applied (a) Sustainable development The objective behind this litigation is to stop
the pollution while encouraging development of industry. The development of industry is
essential for the economy of the country, but at the same time the environment and the eco-
systems have to be protected. 4(c)2010 MD HAROON RASHEED
5. (b) ‘Precautionary Principle’ The pollution created as a consequence of development must
support the carrying capacity of our eco-systems. Thus its better to err on the side of caution
rather to wait for the harm to take place in other words the State must Anticipate, Prevent and
Attack the harm caused to the environment. 5(c)2010 MD HAROON RASHEED
6. (c) “Polluter Pays” principle “Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently
dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any
other person irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care or not. Consequently the
polluting industries are “absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers
in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take
all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected areas”.
6(c)2010 MD HAROON RASHEED
7. Thus the court interpreted the above principle in order to mean that the absolute liability for
harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the
cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is
part of the process of “Sustainable Development”. 7(c)2010 MD HAROON RASHEED
8. (d) Articles from Constitution Articles referred to : 21, 48A, 49 of the Constitution. 8(c)2010
MD HAROON RASHEED
9. Judgment Applying the above mentioned principles and the Articles, the Supreme Court
ordered the 292 industries which were the causing pollution in TTZ, to switch over to natural gas
for natural fuel. The industries which are not in a position to obtain gas connection for any
reason, were required to stop functioning with the aid coke and coal in TTZ. 9(c)2010 MD
HAROON RASHEED
10. Also the workmen employed in the 292 industries were given certain rights and benefits:
(a) The workmen shall have continuity of employment at the new town and place where the
industry is shifted. The terms and conditions of their employment shall not be altered to their
detriment. (b) The period between the closure of the industry in Agra and its restart at the
place of relocation shall be treated as active employment and the workmen shall be paid their full
wages with continuity of service. (c) All those workmen who agree to shift with the industry
shall be given one year's wages as "shifting bonus" to help them settle at the new location. The
said bonus shall be paid before 31.1.1998. 10(c)2010 MD HAROON RASHEED
11. (d) The workmen employed in the industries who do not intend to relocate/obtain Natural
Gas and opt for closure they have been in continuous service (as defined in Section 25-B of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) for not less than one year in the industries concerned before the
said date. They shall be paid compensation in terms of Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes
Act. These workmen shall also be paid, in addition, six years' wages as additional compensation.
(e) The compensation-payable to the workmen in terms of this judgment shall be paid by the
Management within two months of the retrenchment. (f) The gratuity amount payable to any
workman shall be paid in addition." 11(c)2010 MD HAROON RASHEED
12. (c)2010 MD HAROON RASHEED 12

English Español Português Français Deutsch

About Dev & API Blog Terms Privacy Copyright Support

    
LinkedIn Corporation © 2019