Madras High Court stated that the duty to ensure protection from hazardous waste not only rested with the local municipal authority but also extended to the State. The Court held that it is a statutory obligation of the State to ensure that hazardous substances are managed and disposed of in a manner that the health and safety of the public are not endangered.
Brief Facts:
The present writ petition asks the Court to grant relief as prayed for in an incident where two teenagers (the petitioners) were severely injured. The boys had been throwing stones into a body of water that was contaminated with hazardous waste, followed by an explosion due to which both of them suffered burn injuries.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that appropriate relief be granted to the victims.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that the incident was a pure accident and that the State should not be held liable for it. The learned counsel for the private respondents contended that they were not responsible for dumping said hazardous waste and liability should not be fastened to them, and that the petition should be dismissed against them.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that even though the incident happened due to hazardous waste being dumped in a water body close to the site of the industry run by the private respondents, it would be wrong to infer that they had been the ones to dump the waste there. The investigation carried out by the officials was deemed to have been misdirected, and it portrayed the indifference of the authorities. The Court observed that the municipality of the area is under a statutory obligation to take precautions against fire and to ensure public health and safety. It was held inter alia that the municipal authority had the duty to remove the dumped waste, but also that this duty is not confined to the local body alone. The State also has a statutory obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution and Rule 16 of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. The court stated that these are matters where the principle of absolute liability is to be applied.
Decision of the Court:
The writ petition was allowed by the High Court and the government was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 Lakh each to the victims. The Court also stated that if at any point in the future, the victims require any specialized treatment, that too is to be provided by any of the State-run hospitals on a preferential basis.
Case Title: Sankareswari & Anr. vs The District Collector & 5 Ors.
Coram: Honourable Justice G.R. Swaminathan
Case No.: WP(MD) No.16862 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Muniyandi
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. M. Lingadurai (For Respondent 1 and 2),
Mr. B. Thanga Aravindh (For Respondent 3 and 4),
Mr. N. Sathish Babu (For Respondent 5 and 6)
Read Judgment
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments