Disposed

Paladin Paints and Chemicals Private Limited v. Union of India and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2020PIL/87/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding the toxicity of Zinc Chromate in LPG cylinders, the bench declined to deal with technical issues and treated the petition as a representation, directing the Ministry to communicate its decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Treat petition as representation; direct Ministry to communicate decision within three months.

Paladin Paints and Chemicals Private… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

pil.87.2019_6.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J.

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.87 OF 2019

¶5

Paladin Paints & Chemicals Private Limited & … Petitioners anr.

¶6

Vs Union of India through Secretary, … Respondents Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi & others

¶7

Ms.Sneha Phene i/b R.P. Gurjar for the Petitioners

¶8

Mr.Y.S. Bhate with Mr.D.P. Singh and Mr.Y.P. Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.1, 5 and 8 (UOI)

¶9

Mr.Chirag Mody with Raveena Yadav i/b Ashok Purohit & Co. for Respondent No.2 (IOCL)

¶10

Ms.Radhika V. i/b S.R. Page for Respondent No.3 (BPCL)

¶11

Ms.Ashiya Shikh i/b M/s.Rustomaji & Ginwala for Respondent No.4 (HPCL)

¶12

Mr.R.L. Singh i/b M.V. Kini & co. for Respondent No.7 (BIS)

¶13

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.

¶14

DATED: JANUARY 6, 2020

¶15

1. The Writ Petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation says that

¶16

the pigment Zinc Chromate is toxic for human health. It has been

¶17

Digitally signed Vishwanath by Vishwanath S. Sherla S. Sherla Date: 2020.01.08 12:12:47 +0530

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

pil.87.2019_6.doc

¶20

classified as a carcinogen or cancer causing agent by international bodies. The serious health hazards of Zinc Chromate resulted in a ban being imposed on its use.

¶21

The complaint of the petitioners, who are themselves a part of the whole process, says that this ingredient should not be allowed to be used in the manufacture of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinders. It is, therefore, that grievance was made repeatedly by these petitioners but the manufacturers of LPG cylinders are not complying with either the standards laid down by Bureau of Indian Standards or the decisions taken at the international level.

¶22

The petitioners’ grievance is that even the Government of India has ignored the complaint of the petitioners.

¶23

We would appreciate if the Secretary in the Department or Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, takes a note of the grievance projected in this petition and communicate its decision to this petitioner.

¶24

We do not think that this Court is equipped to deal with the technical issues and it is better left to the Ministry concerned.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

pil.87.2019_6.doc

¶27

In the circumstances, let the petition be treated as a representation against the use of Zinc Chromate in the manufacture of LPG cylinders. The decision be communicated as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from today.

¶28

We clarify that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the grievance in the petition.

¶29

The petition is disposed of.

¶30

(R.I. CHAGLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Paladin Paints and Chemicals Private Limited v. Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paladin Paints and Chemicals Private Limited v. Union of India and 7 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

Anand S/O Nanabhau Embadwar Vs Union of India Thr. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, New Delhi and Others

Pratap Sarnaik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Sandip Bacharan Metake vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Dept. and Ors.

Association for Aiding Justice Vs Union of India and Ots.

High Court on Its Own Motion Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

India Centre for Human Rights and Law. and 2 Ors. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Shramik Mukti Sanghatana Vs M/S F.A. Enterprises Tps and Ors.

Pratap Sarnaik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Amol Construction Vs the City and Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. and Ors.

P. Vijayakumar Vs the Director and Appellate Authority through Registrar and 2 Ors.

R. K. Bhuta Vs the Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and 2 Os.

Vikamshi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical and Anr.

Sabulal Buden Khan and 15 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 7 Ors.