Vedanta Limited vs State Of Tamil Nadu
321.In M.C.Mehta vs. UoI [(2004) 6 SCC 588], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dealt with industries which discharge highly toxic effluents
and which did not affirm to the use zones. One of the questions which fell for
consideration was, can the Government plead justification for violation of law
and throw to winds the norms of environments, health and safety or is it
possible to help the workers even without violating the law, if there is a
genuine will to do so. It was held that regularization cannot be done if it
results in violation of right of life enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution. It was further held that the question will have to be considered
Page
http://www.judis.nic.in 365 of 815
W.P.Nos.5756, 5764, 5771, 5772, 5773, 5774,
5776, 5792, 5793, 5801 and 21547 of 2019
not only from the angle of those who have set up industrial units in violation
of the Master Plan, but also others who are residents and are using their
premises as allowed by law. Further, it was held that the question cannot be
examined only from the angle of the industry or even those who are employed
there in the said industry. With regard to the importance of the Master Plan, it
was held that the Master Plan is required to define the various zones into
which Delhi may be divided for the purposes of development and indicate the
manner in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used. The
preparation of the zonal development plan provides for proposed land use and
it also provides that no person shall use or permit to be used any land or
building otherwise than in conformity with the plan in a zone. Further, it was
pointed out that the relevant enactment, namely, the Delhi Development Act ,
1957 provides for detailed procedure for modification of the Master Plan and
the Zonal Development Plan and in terms of Section 14, there is a prohibition
for use of land in contravention of the plan. The Court referred to the decision
Page
http://www.judis.nic.in 366 of 815
W.P.Nos.5756, 5764, 5771, 5772, 5773, 5774,
5776, 5792, 5793, 5801 and 21547 of 2019
in the case of Virendra Gaur, wherein among other things a contention was
raised that there has been change of user and two decades had passed. This
argument was rejected and it was held that the self-destructive argument to put
a premium on inaction cannot be accepted.