Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The aforesaid mental make-up led some leading chemical manufacturers in the country, like Bayer India Limited, one of the respondents herein, to approach the Bombay High Court in a pending writ petition filed by some builders seeking certain orders of the High Court. In one of the writ petitions taken by the High Court for hearing, which was numbered as 4497/90, the Court required the Municipal Corporation to re-examine the building plans and to pass appropriate orders keeping in view, inter alia, the provisions of section 46 of the Maharasthra Regional and Town Planning Act. The matter was brought to this Court by the respondents contending, inter alia, that in the sanctioned plan the area had been shown reserved for industrial user. This Court permitted the respondents to file a review petition before the High Court. On being so approached, the High Court dismissed the intervention application of the respondents and directed the Municipal Corporation to permit construction. This order led the respondents to approach this Court again by filing Interlocutory Application in the disposed of SLP. This Court, by an order passed on 24.2.1993, directed the High Court to dispose of the review application and further directed to maintain status quo, which prevented the appellants tn carry on construction activity within one k.m. radius from the factory premises. The High Court disposed of the review application on 26.9.1994 by giving the following directions :-

4. Respondents were heard on this aspect on many occasions and in the written submissions filed on 2.9.1996 by Bayer India. which can be taken as a representative stand of the respondents, it has been stated relocation is not possible logistically, financially or otherwise. The written submission mentions about various aspects relating to relocation at pages 16 to 20. It has been felt by us that we have neither the expertise nor are in possession of various information, which shall be required. to decide one way or the so far as the question of relocation is concerned. In such a situation what has appealed to us is to leave this matter to be examined by an Authority which we would require the Central Government to constitute, as visualized by section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (the Act). It is not necessary to deal at length as to what is visualized by this Act and why ? This has been explained in detail in a judgment delivered by one of us (Kuldip Singh, J.) on August 28, 1996 in Writ Petition (C) No.914 of 1991, on behalf of a 3-Judge Bench. The concept of "sustainable development", whose salient points have been noted in the aforesaid Judgment, does call upon one and all to see to the maintenance of balance between development and its sustenance in future.