Bombay High Court
Ajay Sadashiv Vaishampayan vs Union Of India Thr Secretary ... on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Makarand Subhash Karnik
8-WP-7015-2022
Pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7015 OF 2022
Ajay Sadashiv Vaishampayan .. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Sanjay K. Ganjkar for petitioner.
Mr. Pranav Thackur for respondent no.1-UOI.
Mr. C. M. Lokesh for respondent no.2.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Govt. Pleader a/w Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP
for respondent no.3-State.
C0RAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE: JUNE 27, 2022
PC:
1. The petitioner, who claims himself to be a social worker,
has challenged the legality and validity of clause 2.0 (i) of the
"Revised Guidelines for Idol Immersion" dated 12th May 2020
(hereafter "the Guidelines", for short) issued by the Central
Pollution Control Board (hereafter "CPCB", for short), whereby
immersion of idols made of Plaster of Paris have been banned.
2. The issue raised in the public interest litigation is no
longer res integra.
3. We find that a similar challenge was raised before a
coordinate Bench at the Nagpur Bench of this Court in Writ
8-WP-7015-2022
Petition No. 3146 of 2021. By a detailed order dated 25 th
August 2021, the challenge was spurned and the writ petition
dismissed. The Bench, however, in its wisdom was of the view
that the Guidelines of the CPCB were not being implemented
in letter and spirit and, accordingly, directed the Registry to
prepare a proper petition for the same being placed before the
Bench as a Public Interest Litigation to secure compliance of
such guidelines. This is one reason why we feel this writ
petition should not be entertained.
4. The other reason is this. A group of individuals as
original applicants had moved the National Green Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereafter "NGT", for short) by
filing Original Application No. 38 of 2021 (WZ). They prayed
for quashing of the same clause, i.e., clause 2.0 (i) of the
Guidelines. Although the NGT held the original application to
be not maintainable, still it proceeded to consider the
grievance of the original applicants on merits. Paragraph 8 of
the order dated 5th July 2021, passed by the NGT, reads thus:
"8. We find that the application under Section 14-15 of
the NGT Act can be filed only by a victim of damage to
the environment in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara Vs. Rajendra Singh
Bhandari & Ors. [(2018) 11 SCC 734]. Thus, the
application is not maintainable. Moreover, as per
`Precautionary' principal of environmental law, required
safeguards can be adopted in anticipation of damage
even in absence of a scientific study. CPCB being an
expert body, has issued guidelines in pursuance of order
of the Bombay High Court and 2010 guidelines earlier
issued on the subject, which were admittedly upheld,
have been now revised. The same are to prevent
immersion of idols containing harmful component which
may result in degradation of water quality. While there
8-WP-7015-2022
may be some opinions about POP being less polluting or
less harmful, the same cannot be taken as conclusive.
There can be differing opinions on the subject. We may
only note that POP idols need use of chemical paints
which are certainly harmful for water quality. We note
that the impugned revised guidelines are reiteration of
NMCG statutory order under section 5 of the EP Act
dated 16.9.2019 passed in pursuance of orders of this
Tribunal in the case of abatement of pollution of Yamuna
and Ganga, being orders dated 13.1.2015 and
16.9.2015 in OA 6/2012 (Yamuna) and orders dated
11.4.2017 and 13.7.2017 in OA 200/2014, holding that
immersion of idols in the rivers was an identified cause
of pollution which was required to be controlled."
5. The order of the NGT was challenged by the
unsuccessful original applicants in Civil Appeal No. 6296/2021
before the Supreme Court, which stands dismissed by an
order dated 25th October 2021.
6. We cannot allow the same issue to be reopened in view
of the aforesaid decisions of the Courts and, accordingly,
dismiss this public interest litigation. No costs.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally
signed by
PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2022.06.28
11:02:29
+0530
