The petitioner filed a writ petition in this court by
way of public interest litigation alleging that the respondent
Tata Iron and Steel Company was polluting the river Bokaro by discharging
surplus waste in the form of sludge and slurry as effluent from its
washeries into river, making the river water unfit for drinking and irrigation
purposes thereby causing risk to the health of the people. The petitioner
contended that the State of Bihar and the State Pollution Control Board have
failed to take appropriate steps for prevention of the pollution and instead
the State of Bihar has granted leases100 on payment of royalty to various persons for collection of
slurry. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for directions to the respondent120 to take immediate steps
prohibiting the pollution of the river and to take legal action against Tata
Iron and Steel Company under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974. The petitioner also claimed interim relief from this Court that
he should be permitted to collect sludge flowing out of washeries of the
respondent.
The respondent contested the petition denying the
petitioner's allegations. Bihar State Pollution Board asserted that
directions have been issued to the Tata Iron200 and Steel Company to take
effective steps for improving the quality of the effluent going into the river
Bokaro and that the Tata Iron and Steel Company has been granted permission to
discharge its effluents from its outlets in accordance240 with sections 25 and 26 of the
1974 Act. On behalf of Tata Iron and Steel Company it was contended that all
effective steps have been taken to prevent the pollution and they have
complied with the instructions of the State Pollution Board. By an order dated 13.12.1990, this Court dismissed the writ
petition with300 costs.
Giving reasons for dismissal of the petition, this Court held that
Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of a
citizen by the Supreme Court. It provides for an extraordinary remedy
to safeguard the fundamental rights of a citizen. Right to life is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it360 includes the right of enjoyment of
pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers
or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has
right to have recourse to Article 32 of400 the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which
may be detrimental to the quality of life. A petition under Article
32 for the prevention of pollution is maintainable at the instance of affected
persons or even by a group of social workers or journalists. But
recourse to proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution should be taken by
person genuinely interested in the protection of society on behalf of the
community. Public interest litigation cannot480 be invoked by a person or body of
persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such500 petitions under Article 32 are
entertained, it would amount to abuse of process of the Court, preventing
speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court. Personal
interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Article
32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation. Public
interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or
enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which
are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their
incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction
of this Court600 under Article 32 must approach this Court for the vindication
of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of
vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is duty of this Court to
discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed
or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court for personal matters under the garb of the public
interest litigation.
The present petition is not filed in public interest. Instead, the
petition has been made by the petitioner in his own interest. In fact,700 there is intrinsic evidence in the
petition itself that the primary purpose of filing this petition is not to
serve720 any public
interest; instead, it is in self-interest. The petitioner has been purchasing
slurry from the respondent for the last several years. With the passage
of time, he wanted more and more slurry but the Company
refused to accept his request. He removed the Company's slurry in an unauthorised
manner for which criminal cases are pending against him and his brother. Since
the respondent company refused to sell additional slurry, he entertained a
grudge against the company, and in800 order to feed his personal grudge, he resorted to several proceedings
against the company including the present one. The prayer made by the
petitioner for permitting him to collect slurry flowing out of the washeries of
the respondent with a840 direction to the State of Bihar, its officers and other authorities
for not preventing him from collecting the slurry and transporting the same
clearly indicates that he is interested in collecting the slurry and
transporting the same for the purposes of his business. Therefore, there
is no good reason to accept the petitioner's allegation that the water of
the river900 Bokaro is being polluted by the discharge of sludge or slurry
into it from the washeries of the respondent-company. On the other hand,
it is evident from records that the State Pollution Control Board has taken
effective steps to check the pollution. This Court did not consider it
necessary to delve into greater detail as the present petition does not960 appear to have been filed
in public interest. Instead, the petition has been made by the
petitioner in his own interest.981
