- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Research Foundation For Science v. Union Of India And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The order concerns a batch of interlocutory applications (IAs) filed in writ petition (civil) No. 657 of 1995, a long-pending public interest litigation relating to hazardous wastes and allied environmental issues. Most of the IAs sought impleadment, directions, exemption from filing translations or extensions of time. Because the main writ petition has already been heard, the Court held that many of these ancillary applications had become infructuous or were not pressed and, therefore, dismissed them. Specific applications, however, required individual treatment—particularly those involving (i) recovery of costs for incineration of waste oil imported by M/s Shiv Priya Overseas (P) Ltd.; (ii) disposal of hazardous containers at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust; (iii) supply of potable water to contaminated areas in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh; and (iv) clarification of an earlier order governing “gas-free-for-hot-work” certificates in ship-breaking operations.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant (M/s Shiv Priya Overseas (P) Ltd. and its Director, Mr Dinesh Chandra)
- Contended that the liability to pay outstanding costs for incineration of waste oil rests with the company, now in liquidation, and should therefore be met by the Official Liquidator.
Petitioners and Provisional Liquidator
- Pointed out that an undertaking dated 18-7-2005 by Mr Dinesh Chandra promised full payment within six months; only about ₹12 lakhs had been paid, leaving a balance outstanding.
Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organisation (PESO)
- Sought clarification/modification of the Court’s order dated 6-9-2007 regarding issuance of “gas-free-for-hot-work” certificates for ships awaiting dismantling.
Union of India / Ministry of Environment and Forests
- Filed an affidavit stating compliance with the 22-1-2008 directions and detailed an agreed institutional mechanism, finalised at a meeting on 13-3-2008, for granting gas-free certificates.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| (2005) 13 SCC 673 | Recorded the undertaking of Mr Dinesh Chandra to pay costs for incineration of hazardous waste within six months. | Used to show the applicant’s prior commitment and justify summoning him for wilful default. |
| (2005) 13 SCC 668 | Earlier direction requiring supply of fresh drinking water to residents of Vapi and Ankleshwar. | Court relied on it to seek compliance affidavits from the States of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. |
| (2007) 8 SCC 583 | Order regulating issuance of “gas-free-for-hot-work” certificates in ship-breaking. | Provided the backdrop for PESO’s request; Court noted that subsequent stakeholder consensus had satisfied the concerns. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
For the bulk of the IAs, the Court reasoned that because the main writ petition had already been fully heard, ancillary prayers for impleadment, directions or extensions no longer served any practical purpose; hence, those applications were dismissed as infructuous.
In IA No. 23 of 2005, the Court emphasised that the import of waste oil—and all steps for its destruction—occurred before the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator. Consequently, the undertaking to pay disposal costs, personally furnished by Mr Dinesh Chandra as a director, bound him individually. Rejecting his attempt to shift liability to the company in liquidation, the Court directed his personal appearance to explain non-compliance and contemplated “appropriate action” for wilful default.
With respect to nine additional defaulting importers named in a Customs affidavit, the Court issued directions that they be represented by counsel on the next date of hearing, signalling potential enforcement action.
The unregistered IA by Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust was allowed after the Court was satisfied that disposal of 13 hazardous containers would comply with directions of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.
On PESO’s clarification request, the Court noted that a meeting convened by the Ministry of Environment and Forests had produced a consensus delineating which authority would issue gas-free certificates in various scenarios. As this satisfied the applicant’s concerns, the IA was disposed of.
In IA 43 of 2007, past directions for potable water supply were reaffirmed; the Court ordered fresh compliance affidavits from the States concerned.
Holding and Implications
Key Dispositions:
- Multiple IAs (Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 44, 50, 54 of various years) were DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS or as “not pressed.”
- IA No. 23 of 2005: Director Mr Dinesh Chandra ordered to appear personally; similar directions issued to nine other defaulting companies.
- Unregistered IA (Aug 2011): Permission granted to Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust to dispose of 13 hazardous containers in accordance with Maharashtra PCB guidelines.
- IAs 48-49 of 2007 and IAs 52-53 of 2007: DISPOSED OF in view of compliance and stakeholder agreement on gas-free certification.
- IA 51 of 2007: Declared INFRUCTUOUS after publication of the Hazardous Wastes Rules, 2008.
- SLPs (C) Nos. 14936-37 of 1998: DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN.
Implications: The order primarily tidies up ancillary applications, clearing procedural clutter before final adjudication of the main environmental writ. It also signals strict enforcement of earlier cost-recovery undertakings and affirms institutional mechanisms for hazardous-waste management (ship-breaking and container disposal). No new legal precedent is announced, but the Court reinforces accountability of individual directors for environmental liabilities incurred prior to company liquidation.
Order
IA No. 6 of 1997 in WP (C) No. 657 of 1995
1. This application was filed on behalf of M/s Travancore Titanium Products (TTP) Ltd. on 21-8-1997 (by Ms Malini Poduval, Advocate), for impleadment. Since the main matter has already been heard out, and the application has been pending for so long, the same is dismissed as having become infructuous.
IAs Nos. 7 and 8 of 1997
2. Similarly, IAs Nos. 7 and 8 of 1997 were filed on behalf of the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board on 29-8-1997 (by Mr K.B Rohatgi, Advocate, for the applicant Board), for appropriate directions and exemption from filing official translation, respectively. There will be a similar order as passed in IA No. 6 of 1997, as far as these IAs are concerned.
IA No. 9 of 1997
3. This application was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 1-12-1997 (by Mr Sanjay Parikh, AOR), for directions. There will be a similar order as passed in IA No. 6 of 1997, as far as this IA is concerned.
IA No. 15 of 2004
4. This application was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 22-9-2004 (by Mr Pramod Swarup (then AOR, now learned Senior Advocate), for impleadment and directions. There will be a similar order as passed above in IA No. 6 of 1997, etc. as far as this IA is concerned.
IA No. 18 of 2005
5. This application filed on behalf of the Government of NCT of Delhi, through the Department of Environment, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi, on 21-2-2005, for directions (by Mr D.N Goburdhun, Advocate) is not pressed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
IA No. 19 of 2005
6. This application was filed on behalf of M/s Ludhiana Refineries, applicant/Noticee No. 8, on 20-5-2005 (by Ms S. Janani, Advocate) for clarification/direction. There will be a similar order as passed above in IA No. 6 of 1997, etc. as far as this IA is concerned.
7. IA No. 24 of 2006 (for impleadment and directions, by Laghu Udyog Bharati).
8. IA No. 25 of 2006 (for impleadment/modification/directions, by M/s Sosiya Ship-breakers Association).
9. IA No. 26 of 2006 in IA No. 25 of 2006 (for placing additional documents on record, by M/s Sosiya Ship-breakers Association).
10. IA No. 29 of 2006 (for directions by Gopal Krishna).
11. IA No. 32 of 2006 (for directions, by Gopal Krishna).
12. IA No. 31 of 2006 (for grant of extension of time on behalf of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests).
13. IA No. 33 of 2006 (for further directions by the Technical Committee on Ship-breaking).
14. IA No. 37 of 2007 (for condonation of delay, by petitioner Mr Sanjay Parikh, Advocate).
15. IA No. 38 of 2007 (for extension of time on behalf of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests).
16. IA No. 44 of 2007 (for permission to file impleadment, by Kishore R. Shah).
17. IA No. 50 of 2007 in IA No. 45 of 2007 (for directions, by Gram Vikas Sangharsh Samiti).
18. IA No. 54 (for extension of time).
19. There will be similar orders as passed above in IA No. 6 of 1997, etc. as far as the above IAs are concerned.
IA No. 23 of 2005
20. This IA has been filed on 6-12-2005, on behalf of M/s Shiv Priya Overseas (P) Ltd. (Respondent 10), for directions (by Ms Bina Gupta, Advocate) for notice to issue to the Provisional Official Liquidator of the applicant Company, regarding the amounts directed to be paid towards the costs for incineration of the waste oil, which had been imported by the Company.
21. From the materials on record, it appears that the import had taken place prior to the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator and all steps for destruction of the said import goods were taken prior to the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator. In fact, an undertaking was given by Mr Dinesh Chandra, on 18-7-2005, indicating that the outstanding amounts would be paid within a period of six months from the date of the order (2005) 13 SCC 673. We are informed by Mr Sanjay Parikh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and also by the learned counsel appearing for the Provisional Liquidator, that apart from paying a sum of approximately Rs 12 lakhs, the balance has remained unpaid. On the other hand, this application has now been made on behalf of Mr Dinesh Chandra, indicating that the liability for such payment would be that of the Company, which is now being represented by the Official Liquidator.
22. We are unable to accept the contention made in the said application, since the undertaking had been given by Mr Dinesh Chandra, as a Director of the Company, for imports that had taken place prior to the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator. Accordingly, for default in complying with the undertaking given by Mr Chandra, he is directed to be personally present in the Court on 28-3-2012, at 10.00 a.m to explain as to why appropriate action could not be taken against him for his wilful default in making the payments in respect of which an undertaking has been given by him. Let this IA be listed on that date for further consideration.
23. It has also been pointed out by Mr Parekh and Mr Ashok Bhan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, that apart from M/s Shiv Priya Overseas (P) Ltd., there are nine other similarly placed defaulters, namely:
(i) M/s Indochem Industries,
(ii) M/s Valley International,
(iii) M/s Shalimar Chemicals Inds. (P) Ltd.,
(iv) M/s Hindustan Trading Corporation,
(v) M/s Central Steel and General Industries,
(vi) M/s Jairaj Ispat Ltd.,
(vii) M/s Shri Sainath Enterprises,
(viii) M/s Ludhiana Refineries and,
(ix) M/s Pioneer Petrochem.
The information regarding default committed by the said companies had been provided in the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai (Maharashtra).
24. Let directions be issued to the abovementioned defaulting companies, who are directed to be represented by their respective counsel on 28-3-2012, at 10.00 a.m
IA No. … of 2011
25. An unregistered IA filed on behalf of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, in August 2011, praying for leave to dispose of 13 hazardous containers in his possession in terms of the directions given by the Monitoring Committee has been listed for appropriate order. Such prayer is allowed. Let the said containers be disposed of in the manner indicated by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. IA is disposed of accordingly.
26. IA No. 14 of 2004 (for directions, on behalf of the State of Rajasthan), filed on 22-1-2004, IA No. 21 of 2005 (for intervention/directions, filed on 23-8-2005, by Madhumita Dutta, IA No. 35 of 2007, for directions, filed by Mr Bhagavatsinh Halubha Gohil and Others, filed on 8-3-2007, IA No. 36 of 2006 in IA No. 21 of 2004, filed by Madhumita Dutta, for permission to file additional documents, filed on 8-3-2007, IA No. 39 of 2007 (for directions) filed by Y. Suresh (Ms Anitha Shenoy, AOR) filed in April 2007 and IAs Nos. 45-47 of 2007, for impleadment/direction/interim relief, filed by Gram Vikas Sangharsh Samiti, are taken up.
27. Let the prayers in the above IAs be considered in the judgment to be delivered in the main matter.
IA No. 43 of 2007
28. This IA has been filed by Kishore R. Shah (for direction), claiming to be a Member of the Citizen Council, Chala — Vapi, in which directions had been sought for a direction upon the State of Gujarat, to provide fresh drinking water to the residents of Vapi and Ankleshwar. It appears that by an order dated 7-5-2004 (2005) 13 SCC 668, a direction had been given in such regard and today, Ms Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat, submits that steps were immediately taken pursuant to the directions given. Ms Wahi is requested to file an affidavit in this regard within a week from date. A similar affidavit may also be filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, in relation to supply of fresh drinking water to the areas in and contiguous to the Union Carbide Plant in Bhopal. Learned advocate, Ms Vibha Datta Makhija, who had represented the State of M.P, shall take steps to comply with these directions.
IAs Nos. 48-49 of 2007
29. These applications have been filed on behalf of the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organisation (formerly Department of Explosives), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, for clarification/modification of the order passed by this Court on 6-9-2007 (2007) 8 SCC 583. In response to the same an affidavit was filed by the Union of India, indicating that it had complied with the order dated 22-1-2008 WP (C) No. 657 of 1995, and that a meeting had been held at the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) of the stakeholders on 13-3-2008, under the Chairmanship of the Additional Secretary of the said Ministry. In the meeting, it was agreed as follows:
“(i) Pesco (formerly Department of Explosives) would issue the gas-free-for-hot-work certificate in respect of the petroleum cargo vessels, Floating Production Services and Offshore (FPSO) and slop tanks at the anchoring stage prior to beaching as per the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Petroleum Rules, 2002.
(ii) The Office of the Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health, Government of Gujarat can issue gas-free-for-hot-work certificate in respect of all other cargo vessels except the petroleum cargo vessels, FPSO and slop tanks, as per the Gujarat Factories Act, 1963, at the anchoring stage prior to beaching.
(iii) In respect of the fuel tanks of any type of vessels, the gas-free-for-hot-work certificate can be issued either by the Office of the Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health or PESO, after beaching and prior to dismantling.”
30. Accordingly, the prayer made by the applicant appears to have been satisfied and the applications are disposed of accordingly.
IAs Nos. 52 and 53 of 2007 (for impleadment/direction, on behalf of the Ship Recycling Industries Association). (India)
31. There will be a similar order as passed in IAs Nos. 48-49 of 2007, as far as these IAs are concerned.
IA No. 51 of 2007
32. IA No. 51 which has been filed by Dr Claude Alvares, member of the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee, praying for an injunction to restrain the Union of India from finalising of a notification on hazardous wastes dated 28-9-2007, has been rendered infructuous on account of the publication of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008.
IA No. 1 of 1995
33. IA No. 1 has been filed in connection with the suo motu contempt rule, which has already been issued. The same may be taken up separately.
SLPs (C) Nos. 14936-37 of 1998
34. On mentioning, let these special leave petitions be taken on board. It has been submitted by Mr Agarwal that the petitioners do not wish to proceed with the special leave petitions, which are, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. However, Mr Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for some of the respondents, submits that the writ petition itself has been disposed of by the High Court with certain directions.
35. Having regard to the above, Mr Gonsalves submits that the directions given by the High Court to file judgment may be taken into consideration at the time of passing final orders in the matter(s) pending before this Court.
Court Masters
Alert