Gujarat High Court
Vadodara vs Federation on 8 August, 2011
Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/537/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12774 of 2000
In
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4393 of 1998
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2795 of 1997
=================================================
VADODARA
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
FEDERATION
OF INDUSTRIES GUJARAT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & 119 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRANAV G DESAI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 5,7 - 51,53 - 83,85 - 90,92 - 110,112 - 113,115 -
116,118 - 119.
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2, 5,
7, 11,14 - 15,17 - 24, 27,29 - 36,38 - 42, 44, 50,52 - 63,65 - 67,69
- 72,74 - 83,86 - 90,94 - 97,100 - 103,106 - 108,112 - 113,115 -
116,118 - 119.
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 3 - 4,8 -
10,12 - 13, 16, 28, 33, 37, 43,45 - 46,48 - 49, 51, 64, 66, 68, 73,
85,92 - 93,98 - 99,104 - 105,109 - 110.
MR MANISH R BHATT for
Respondent(s) : 3,
NANAVATI & NANAVATI for Respondent(s) :
6,
MR TARAK DAMANI for Respondent(s) : 6,
SINGHI & BUCH
ASSO. for Respondent(s) : 16,
MR AY KOGJE for Respondent(s) :
25,
MR HC PANDYA for Respondent(s) : 26,
MR MB FAROOQUI for
Respondent(s) : 45, 51,
M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for Respondent(s)
: 46,
MR BHARAT T RAO for Respondent(s) : 47,
MR KV SHELAT for
Respondent(s) : 48,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 52,
-
for Respondent(s) : 0.0.0, 0.0.0, 0.0.0, 0.0.0,0.0.0
- for
Respondent(s) : 0.0.0
=================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 08/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA) The respondent-industries are granted two days' time to obtain instructions as to whether they jointly agree to pay the costs incurred by the Baroda Municipal Corporation for construction of effluent treatment plant, in which the effluents of the respondent-industries are discharged. They will keep it in mind that the polluters are bound to pay for the untreated effluents.
A report has been submitted by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, which is completely vague, misleading and incomplete, and a total non-application of mind on the part of the officers who have prepared the report. We, accordingly, direct the Environmental Engineer to file a fresh report by the next date, indicating the pollution caused by one or other industry situated in the area, including all the respondent-industries. He will remain present on the next date. It is made clear that if large scale pollution is done in the area in question, the Court may order closure of one or the other or all the units. Post the matter for orders on 16th August 2010 on the top of the list.
(S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.) (J.B. PARDIWALA, J.) [sn devu] pps Top