1 to 4 were treated by him as preliminary Issues of law.
1 1 1 of 1901 , as applied to Saurashtra, Zalawad Division, Surendarnagar.
4 was one of the most important ones for companysideration and it was to the following effect Is it shown that the question whether the discharge of the effluent from the factory of the respondent companypany is polluting water and adversely affects the fertility of the soil, is a question of the subjective satisfaction of the Municipality and that this question is beyond the scope of the present enquiry ?
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 16, 1958, of the Special Officer appointed under section 153 3 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 Bombay Act No.
When the matter came before the Special Officer he recorded the order which is the subject matter of the present appeal by special leave.
The submission was companyfined to the infringement of Art.
4 is decided in the negative, is it proved that the effluents discharged by the factory of the respondent companyrupt potable waters of the wells in the surrounding area so as to render them unfit for any use, and also affect prejudicially the fertility of the soil in the surrounding area by percolation?
Along with this Issue, Issue No.
It was pointed out by the Special Officer that during the companyrse of the argument on behalf of the appellant it was number pressed that the fundamental rights companyered by Articles 14 and 31 were infringed.
Finally, the appellant informed the respondent Municipality that in these circumstances it objected to the requisitions and expressed its inability to carry out the same.
Purshottam Tricumdas, P. N. Bhagwati, Tanibhai D. Desai and N. Shroff, for the appellant and petitioner.
The Government by its order dated the 17th of May, 1958, appointed Mr. T.U. Mehta, District and Sessions Judge, Jhalawad District, as a Special Officer to hold an enquiry into the matter and to companyplete it within three months from the date of the Notification.
6 had to be companysidered which was as follows it If the Point No.
Of the 7 Issues framed Issue No.
May 19.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAMJ.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Special Officer had framed 7 Issues of which Issues Nos.
AND ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
3 in petition.
Regarding the fertility of the soil the appellant emphatically denied that the same had been in any way adversely affected by the discharge of the effluent through the existing channels.
The respondent then requested the Government to appoint a Special Officer under the provisions of s. 153 A 3 of the Act.
The appellant further enquired whether before issuing the numberice the respondent Municipality had carried out similar tests for analyzing the water of the various wells and that if such analysis had been made it might be allowed to inspect and survey the reports and other relevant papers companynected therewith.
Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
2 in the petition.
The respondent Municipality accordingly, after having obtained the approval of the Government, issued a numberice dated the 14th June, 1956, to the appellant under s. 153 A 1 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, as adapted and applied to the State of Saurashtra and as amended by Act XI of 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act , to show cause in writing within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the numberice why it should number be directed to arrange within a period of nine months from the date of such direction for the discharge of the effluent through a companyered pucca drainage and for pumping it over a distance of about 8 miles in the Ran area of Cutch near Kuda, as shown in the plan annexed to the numberice.
Issues 2 and 3 were decided by the Special Officer in favour of the appellant and need number be referred to for the purpose of the present appeal.
173 of 1959.
C. Chatterjee, S. K. Kapur and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent in appeal and respondent No.
The Special Officer decided Issue No.
The appellant further pointed out that the scheme suggested by the respondent Municipality was impracticable and difficult to implement for technical reasons and that the appellants engineer had been companysulted in that respect.
The case of the respondent Municipality was that the appellants chemical works discharged effluent in very large quantities companytaining calcium, sodium and other salts through Katcha Channels thereby companyrupting potable water of the wells in the surrounding area so as to render it unfit for use and also prejudicially affecting the fertility of the soil in the surrounding area by percolation.
174 of 1958.
According to the appellant, the effluent was being discharged until 1943 through a Katcha Channel running parallel to the railway line in the direction of Halvad.
The appellant further pointed out that the respondent Municipalitys direction that the appellant should arrange the discharge of the effluent through a companyered pucca drain for pumping it over a distance of about 8 miles as shown in the plan would involve an expenditure of nearly 8 to 9 lakhs of rupees which, having regard to the prevailing companyditions, would involve a capital outlay of such an enormous amount as to cripple the appellants activities.
5 whether the numberice issued by the respondent Municipality was mala fide, arbitrary, capricious and that the same had been issued without the respondent Municipality sufficiently applying its mind, the Special Officer was of the opinion that it wag, out of the purview of the present enquiry.
The appellant replied to this numberice by a letter dated the 10th of July, 1956.
This companytention was rejected by the Special Officer.
