Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shanti Ganatantra Samhati Mancha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 April, 2023
Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
11.04.2023
6 to 8
ns/pg Ct.1
WPA 26162 of 2014
Shanti Ganatantra Samhati Mancha & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
With
WPA 8033 of 2017
With
I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2018 (old CAN 3763 of 2018)
With
I.A. No.CAN 2 of 2021
With
WPA 9114 of 2014
Ms. Shamim Ahammed,
Mr. Arka Maiti,
Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin .... for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, Ld. A. G.,
Mr. T. M. Siddique,
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee,
Mr. Sirsaqnya Bandopadhyay,
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag ... for the State.
Mr. N. C. Bihani,
Mrs. P. B. Bihani
... for the W.B. Pollution Control Board.
Mr. Dipanjan Datta,
Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury
.... For the Regional Occupational
Health Centre (Eastern Region)
(in WPA 8033 of 2017)
1.By these public interest writ petitions, the petitioners seek for various directions to address the concerns of silicosis victims. Pursuant to the directions issued earlier, silicosis rehabilitation policy has been framed by the State Government. 2
2. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that though the policy has been framed, the same is yet to be implemented. Certain statistics have been given with regard to the victims, who have been affected by the said diseases, who have been screened for treatment but there has been no effective follow up action.
3. It is submitted that the cause of this disease is on account of inhalation of silica dust primarily arising during the course of production in cement factories, in thermal power plants, in the mining industries, stone crushing units, etc.
4. After hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners for a considerable length of time, we are of the opinion that the State Government should come forward with a concrete proposal in the form of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The State Government needs to address the issues broadly under two heads. Firstly, how to ensure effective treatment is administered to the victims of silicosis and more importantly, as to how to prevent persons employed in the above category of industries from being affected by silicosis.
5. The State Government should also inform the Court as to what steps have been taken to implement the silicosis rehabilitation policy, which appears to have been formulated on 17 th December, 3 2021 and circulated for implementation on 25th February, 2022.
6. The learned Advocate General submitted that there are various statutes, which regulate the manner in which these industries should function such as the Factories Act. It is no doubt true that there are several statutes, namely, the Factories Act, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974. There are various enactments, which regulate the mining industry but the larger question is whether the provisions in the various statutes are being implemented and as to whether there has been any directive given by the State Government or other authorities for inspecting these units to ensure safety measures to the persons employed in those units.
7. Therefore, we direct the competent authority of the State Government to file a comprehensive report covering the above-mentioned concerns as well as other related matters.
8. Let the report be placed on the next hearing date. The matters be listed on 8th May, 2023 in the daily list.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) 4