Disposed

Hashmat Parkar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Dec 2011PIL/164/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL regarding pollution in Dabhol Creek caused by chemical industries. It directed the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to upgrade the Common Effluent Treatment Plant and treat effluents from units discharging into the creek, with a deadline of July 31, 2012.

What did the court decide?

Directed MPCB to upgrade CETP, treat effluents, and take action against polluting industries.

Hashmat Parkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2011)

PIL.164.2010(4).sxw

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 164 OF 2010

¶6

Hashmat Parkar & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Ashwin V. Hon i/b. Mr. S.V. Marne for Petitioners Mrs. Sharmila U. Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 Mr. P.P. Chavan a/w. Ms. Shyamali Gadre i/b. Little & Co., for Respondent No.2

¶10

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 1 DECEMBER 2011.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This petition is filed by the citizens of village Karji Amshet in Taluka Khed, District: Ratnagiri who have made grievance about the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not taking effective steps for stopping pollution in Dabhol Creek due to chemical industries releasing poisonous effluents in the said Dabhol Creek in Ratnagiri District through Respondent No.5.

¶13

In the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. Pravin Manohar Joshi, Regional Officer of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board at Kolhapur, it is pointed out that Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) the Respondent No.5 herein was set up in the year 1982-83. The

¶14

PIL.164.2010(4).sxw

¶15

¶16

area is mainly an industrial zone. There are 155 industries out of which 53 units were major water polluting industries. The respondent No.5 Society has set out rules to treat the industries generating effluents and have provided effluent treatment plant and treated effluents were disposed off through the MIDC pipe line which went to the Common Effluent Treatment Plant for further treatment.

¶17

It is stated that now respondent No.5 has started upgradation of the Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) and after upgration of the CETP the pollutants will be treated properly and the discharge of the effluent water in Dabhol Creek will not cause any damage.

¶18

Mrs. S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 states that upgradation was scheduled to be completed by 31 March 2012, but now the time has been granted for its completion till 31 July 2012. The learned Counsel further states that respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have regularly carried out and continue to monitor the pollution by CETP and discharge into the Dabhol Creek and by surprise visits and actions are being taken in the industrial estate. It is stated that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) has also given cogent directions to the industries/units for CETP upgradation with the pollution treatment plants.

¶19

In view of the above submissions made in the affidavit filed on the MPCB, we dispose of this Petition with the directions to the MPCB to upgrade the CETP and to treat the effluents of plants/units discharging the effluents directly or indirectly into the Dabhol Creek and to take action in accordance with law, wherever the industries are found to be polluting the relevant statutory provisions.

¶20

PIL.164.2010(4).sxw

¶21

¶22

In case the CETP is not upgraded by 31 July 2012, the Petitioners will be at liberty to move this Court again.

¶23

The Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

ROSHAN DALVI, J.

Hashmat Parkar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hashmat Parkar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aagand Shesharao Sawant and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pathan Zafarali Khan Mohd. Ali Khan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Suresh Shripast Mhatre Vs the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 4 Ors.

Maruti Dagdu Morabale Vs 1. S.N.D.T. Womens University, through Its Registrar and Ors.

Shriniwas Balaprasad Barbyasi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Laxman Kashinath Sable Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Forum for Fairness in Education Vs the Honourable Chief Minister and 2 Ors.

Maruti Ukandi Ingole Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Suresh Shripast Mhatre Vs the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 4 Ors.

Laxman K. Agarwal Vs Bridget Southo and Anr.

Asha R. Desai Vs Suhas P. Thakur and Anr.

Shashi Laxman Kadam Vs Red Stone Realators and 4 Ors.

Vijayalaxmi B. Tawde and Anr. Vs Kalpana D. Bagwe @ Kalpana S. Bachhav and 2 Ors.

Forum for Fairness in Education Vs the Honourable Chief Minister and 2 Ors.