UNIVESITY OF PETROLIUM AND ENERGY STUDIES

SCHOOL OF LAW

Academic year:- 2017-2018 Session :- July- December

PROJECT ON

LAW OF TORTS

NAME:- SHUBH SINGHAL

SAP-ID:- 500061266

ROLL NO.:- 47
 INTRODUCTION

The tortuous liability for environmental wrongs emerged out of public nuisance. The entire
law on environment protection is an offshoot of the liability for nuisance under the law of
torts. The judicial interpretation of the fundamental right to life, in terms of the environment
protection, is the result of judicial activism in public interest litigation. The ‘polluter pays’
principle has its roots in strict liability. The expansion of the scope of the environmental tort
or mass tort is evident with the evolution of the absolute liability rule in MC Mehta’s case,
imposing a constitutional obligation on the polluter. Article 21 (Right to life) includes the
right to unpolluted environment by implication. Article 41 directs the state to improve the
living standards and public health. Article 48 A imposes a duty on the state to improve the
environment. One of the fundamental duties of the citizen is to protect and improve the
natural environment including the forest, lakes, rivers, wild life , and to have compassion for
living creatures . Article 32 provides a right by knocking the doors of justice at the supreme
court and art 226 to the high court. Article 234 –A as included by seventy third and seventy –
fourth amendments , gives power to local bodies to manage the resources , including water
and air for the agriculture sector. While intentional trespass is actionable per se under the law
of torts , a person who suffers personal injury or damage to property could sue and succeed
by proving special damage. Nuisance means anything which annoys or hurts. Pollution of
water is nuisance if it changes the natural qualities of water, which is actionable under the
common law as an infringement of proprietary rights such as riparian right , right to take
underground water, or an easement to flow of water, or a profit –a- pendre ,or a right of
fishery. Private nuisance is actionable if it causes special damage to the individual. For public
nuisance without proof of special damage, Advocate general can sue for damages or removal
of nuisance. Polluting deliberately is a crime. Provisions relating to public health (ss-269-
278), provisions relating to public safety (ss292-294A) deal with environmental offences.
Voluntarily polluting the public spring or reservoir rendering it less fit for human
consumption is punishable with imprisonment extending up to six months and or fine up to
the extent of Rs 1000.Making the atmosphere noxious to health (s278),omission causing
common injury, damage or annoyance (s 268) are also punishable. Even a motorist blowing
smoke into the face of another may be challenged under these provisions. Section 425
punishes mischief causing water pollution or reducing quality of property. Section 133 of
Code of Criminal Procedure empowers Executive Magistrate to make an order for removal of
nuisance. A citizen can initiate action against municipal authority for not discharging their
statutory duty for not providing their drainage and other sanitary facilities 1.

NATIONAL TRIBUNAL ACT

The national tribunal act The National Environment Tribunal Act was enacted by the
parliament on 17th June 1995, India faces many environmental issues due to growing
population as population been the major cause not only to the environmental degradation by
causing pollution but also acts as major participation in environmental accidents. India been a
participant of the United Nations Conference which held in the year 1992, it considered to
implement the Tribunal regarding the protection of environment and payment of
compensation to persons, property and the environment. Tribunal constituted under Act to
dispose the matter connected with environment issues and compensation thereon.

National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 consists of 31 Sections to fulfill the broad
objectives laid under Act. As the Act enacted with a broad objective to provide compensation
to person who got injured, the owner has to pay compensation under Section 3, where there
been damage caused to the environment and the death or injury has been resulted due to the
accident. The person can make application with respect to claim for compensation to the
Tribunal under provision as specified under Section 4(1), Tribunal while dealing with the
application of compensation as specified in the provisions of Act shall exercise the same
jurisdiction and authority as that of matters as specified in Public Liability Insurance Act,
1991. Owner who responsible for the environmental accident is liable to pay compensation
not only under National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995, but also liable to pay relief
specified under the provisions of Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991and the relief paid be
substantiated by the compensation paid.2 The national environment tribunal Act 1995 has
translated the rule in MC Mehta into legal provision. As per the decision at the united nations
conference on environment and development held at Rio de janeiro in june 1992, India, as a
member-state, made this law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution

1
Ramaswamy Iyer, The Law of Torts 344,(LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 10 th Ed.).
2
The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995. Available at:- https://lawyerslaw.org/the-national-environment-
tribunal-act-1995/. Last visited 17th November, 2017.
and other environmental damage. The law provides for strict liability for damages arising out
of any accident, occurring while handling any hazardous substance and for the establishment
of National Environment Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of cases arising from
such accident, with a view to giving relief and compensation for damages to victims.

TORT AGAINST ENVIRONMENT

Recently the supreme court directed some multinational soft drink producers to remove the
advertisements painted on the historic rocks enroute kulu manali area in Himachal Pradesh,
and imposed heavy damages of Rs 5 crores for polluting the naturally formed
environmentally valuable geographic rocks. The Supreme court was responding to a news
item where the rape of rock was questioned. The item read reads as follows :

The Supreme Court has hauled up several firms, including united states-based soft drinks
majors Coca-cola and pepsi, for defacing millions of years old rocks in the Himalayas by
painting advertisements on them and then trying to cover up the damage.

A three –judge bench of the apex court, headed by BN Kirpal, CJ on sept 26 ordered Coca-
cola and publishing firm Malhotra Book Depot(MBD), to pay $62500 each, while pepsi was
told to pay $31,250, textiles major Grasim and manufacturer of detergents Fena $20,833
each, Amron batteries $5,208, as well as state bank of India and sleepwell mattresses, $2,604
each for damaging rocks at the Rohtang pass in Himachal Pradesh.

The companies were told to deposit the money within 10 days and to file their responses to
the notice by 11 October. The court also ordered that companies indulging in similar
vandalism in the country should be identified at the earliest and they be penalized.

The former union law minister, Arun jaitely appeared for pepsi and Anil B Divan for Coca –
cola. Jaitley said the advertisement must have been painted by the bottlers of the soft
drinkers’ firms. He said the assessment of the cost for restoration should be based on the
principle of equity. He pointed out that many big names like Airtel, sharp, Britannia and
Nestle, which had also erred, had been left out. Divan suggested that to assess the
environmental damages, the court should take the help of experts. Located at an altitude of
4,112 meters, Rohtang pass is the highest point on the Manali-Keylong road, 32 miles from
Manali town. The court had issued notices to the firm after Solicitor General, Harish Salve,
brought to its attention, an investigation conducted by the Indian Express on the shocking
violation of the region’s fragile ecology. Earlier, coke and pepsi were asked to shell out Rs
200,000($4,166) each as the cost of assessing the damage. The cola majors had then said they
would abide by the court’s Verdict. Apart from these firms, the Himachal Pradesh
Government was also fined Rs 10 million for allowing the companies to paint ads on rocks.
The Coke officials could not be reached for comment. A pepsi spokesman promised to abide
by the court ruling, but decline to speak further. Indian corporate watchers and greens
cheered the Supreme Court’s decision to impose stiff fines on anyone causing environmental
damage. They said the move to penalize Indian and foreign companies for painting
advertisements on ecologically sensitive rock faces along a stretch of highways would act as
a deterrent for others. ‘ The fine imposed by the supreme court on coke, pepsi and others is
warning for others violators who think that in India you can completelydisregard the
principles of corporate governance and get away with it’, Goyal told Indo-Asian News
Service. The court verdict is essentially warning those who do not take environmental or
other safety aspects seriously when it comes to commercial gains in India it is said by
corporate lawyer Chander M Lall. He further says , ‘ I think the court verdict will act as a
severe deterrent because more than the imposition of fine it’s the adverse publicity that will
damage the image of the offenders like Coca-Cola and pepsi’. The supreme court acted as a
perfect saviour of freedom by preventing the government from making repressive laws under
the grab of the newsprint control and advertisement control policy, with this historical
judgment.

ENVIRONMENTAL TORT/ PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION

Pollution of the river Ganga is a public nuisance. The petition by a person who is not a
riparian owner, is maintainable because he is interested in protecting the lives of the people
using the water of the of the river Ganga. It is maintainable as a public interest litigation. The
nuisance caused by the pollution of the river Ganga is a public nuisance, which is widespread
in range and indiscriminate in its effect and it would not be reasonable to expect any
particular person, to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community at large. The
Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur has to bear the major responsibility for the pollution of the river
near Kanpur city. On account of failure of authorities to obey the statutory duties for several
years, the water in the river Ganga remains polluted. Although the parliament and state
legislature have enacted many laws imposing duties on the central and state legislature have
enacted many laws imposing duties on the central and state boards and the municipalities for
prevention and control of pollution of water, many of those provisions have just remained on
paper without any adequate action being taken pursuant thereto. The Andhra Pradesh High
Court held that the permission granted by the municipality for connecting the sewerage
pipeline of the builder to the underground municipal pipeline was illegal as no one can be
permitted to pollute the atmosphere of an area by letting out offensive material from his
premises. The court held that it was incumbent upon the builders and those who are engaged
in the construction work to comply strictly with the approved plans for drainage system. If
there is any infringement of the approved plans, then the liability of the person concerned ,
who is in charge of the building operations, is of an absolute nature. Where the municipality
and police had failed to cut down the coconut tree in the land of respondent causing damage
and endangering the life of neighbours and members of public and had refused to take any
further action, the high court under art 226 of the constitution directed the municipality to
remove the tree. In such a situation if the court refuses to interfere , it will amount to
according concession to a citizen to satisfy his whim and vanity and simultaneously denying
another from establishing his legal right to live in the society without apprehension of his life
and property. When the dispute between private parties ultimately affects the rights and
privileges of neighbours and members of public at large, it must be deemed to be a public
nuisance caused by private citizen. The court declined to interfere with the project of laying
of new broad gauge railway line passing through three states for the benefit of general public
which was undertaken after approval by the renowned experts. The petitioners pleaded
cutting of trees and damages to ecology and environment of khazan lands and churches and
temples besides preventing migratory birds from reaching Goa. It was held that the project
was not affecting the environment. The expert committee constituted by the high court in
response to public interest litigation, has filed a report confirming the apprehensions that
mining of lime stone in the saproon valley will adversely affect the vegetation and
environment, and recommended the immediate stoppage of mining operation. The mining
caused great damage to the fields below the environment, and it lead to pollution of water and
soil erosion of surrounding land and ecological imbalance. The Himachal Pradesh high court
accepted the report and directed accordingly ,stating that strict proof about the fact was not
necessary in public interest litigation and that curative steps could not be taken without
stopping the mining.

TAJ CORRIDOR CASE

In MC Mehta v Union of Indian (UOI) and ors , on behalf of monitoring committee, the
Supreme Court directed CBI to lodge FIR and make further investigations in accordance with
law. The court in its earlier orders regarding pollution of atmosphere in the vicinity of Taj
Mahal had appointed a committee to report the progress of the action being taken by the Agra
Mission Management Board. CBI was directed to conduct enquiry into the matter of
development of heritage corridor by NPCC. It was also directed to interrogate the persons
involved and to verify their accounts as it was alleged that the concerned officials and the
chief minister has released Rs 17 crores without proper sanction. A detailed report was
submitted to Supreme Court in this issue. Direction was given to the central government as
well as to the state government to hold departmental enquiry against the concerned
secretaries as well as the managing Directors of NPCC who had undertaken the project.

NOISE POLLUTION CASE

The constitutional validity of noise pollution rules was challenged under the constitution of India, arts
14 and 21 Environment protection act The present generation and the coming generations have
to solve three grave problems, namely, population poverty and pollution if they have to
survive. Pollution being the most dangerous problem likes cancer in which death is sure but
slow. Environment pollution is assuming dangerous proportions all through the globe and
India is not free from this poisonous disease. This is the gift of modern living,
industrialization and urbanization. Unless timely action is taken we have a forbid and bleak
future for the world.

The word noise is derived from the Latin term nausea. It has been defined as unwanted
sound, a potential hazard to health and communication dumped into the environment with
regard to the adverse effect it may have on unwilling ears.

1. Noise is defined as unwanted sound

Sound, which pleases the listeners, is music and that which causes pain and annoyance
is noise. At times, what is music for some can be noise for others2

Section 2 (a) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 includes noise in
the definition of ‘air pollutant’.

Section 2(a) air pollution means any solid, liquid or gaseous substance including noise
present in the atmosphere such concentration as may be or tent to injurious to human
beings or other living creatures or plants or property or environment. Sources of Noise
Pollution
Noise pollution like other pollutants is also a by- product of industrialization, urbanizations
and modern civilization. Broadly speaking , the noise pollution has two sources, i.e. industrial
and non- industrial. The industrial source includes the noise from various industries and big
machines working at a very high speed and high noise intensity. Non- industrial source of
noise includes the noise created by transport/vehicular traffic and the neighborhood noise
generated by various noise pollution can also be divided in the categories , namely, natural
and manmade. Most leading noise sources will fall into the following categories: roads
traffic, aircraft, railroads, construction, industry, noise in buildings, and consumer products.

1. Road Traffic Noise:

In the city, the main sources of traffic noise are the motors and exhaust system of autos ,
smaller trucks, buses, and motorcycles. This type of noise can be augmented by narrow
streets and tall buildings, which produce a canyon in which traffic noise reverberates.

2. Air Craft Noise:

Now-a-days , the problem of low flying military aircraft has added a new dimension to
community annoyance, as the nation seeks to improve its nap-of the- earth aircraft operations
over national parks, wilderness areas , and other areas previously unaffected by aircraft noise
has claimed national attention over recent years.

3. Noise from railroads:

The noise from locomotive engines, horns and whistles, and switching and shunting operation
in rail yards can impact neighboring communities and railroad workers. For example, rail car
retarders can produce a high frequency, high level screech that can reach peak levels of 120
dB at a distance of 100 feet, which translates to levels as high as 138, or 140 dB at the
railroad worker’s ear.

4. Construction Noise:
The noise from the construction of highways , city streets , and buildings is a major
contributor to the urban scene . Construction noise sources include pneumatic hammers, air
compressors, bulldozers, loaders, dump trucks (and their back-up signals), and pavement
breakers.

5. Noise in Industry:
Although industrial noise is one of the less prevalent community noise problems, neighbors
of noisy manufacturing plants can be disturbed by sources such as fans, motors, and
compressors mounted on the outside of buildings Interior noise can also be transmitted to the
community through open windows and doors, and even through building walls. These interior
noise sources have significant impacts on industrial workers, among whom noise- induced
hearing loss is unfortunately common.

6. Noise in building:
Apartment dwellers are often annoyed by noise in their homes, especially when the building
is not well designed and constructed. In this case, internal building noise from plumbing,
boilers, generators, air conditioners, and fans, can be audible and annoying. Improperly
insulated walls and ceilings can reveal the soundof-amplified music, voices, footfalls and
noisy activities from neighboring units. External noise from emergency vehicles, traffic,
refuse collection, and other city noises can be a problem for urban residents, especially when
windows are open or insufficiently glazed.

7. Noise from Consumer products:

Certain household equipment, such as vacuum cleaners and some kitchen appliances have
been and continue to be noisemakers, although their contribution to the daily noise dose is
usually not very large.

4 Harmful Effects:
On Human Being, Animal and Property: Noise has always been with the human civilization
but it was never so obvious, so intense, so varied & so pervasive as it is seen in the last of this
century. Noise pollution makes men more irritable. The effect of noise pollution is
multifaceted & inter related. The effects of Noise Pollution on Human Being, Animal and
property are as follows:
I It decreases the efficiency of a man:- Regarding the impact of noise on human efficiency
there are number of experiments which print out the fact that human efficiency increases with
noise reduction. A study by Sinha & Sinha in India suggested that reducing industrial booths
could improve the quality of their work. Thus human efficiency is related with noise.

Law of Torts Noise pollution is considered as civil wrong:-

Under law of torts , a civil suit can be filed claiming damages for the nuisance. For filing a
suit under law of torts a plaintiff is required to comply with some of the requirement of tort of
nuisance which are as follows:-
1. There should be reasonable interference.
2. Interference should be with the use & enjoyment of land.
3. In an action for nuisance actual damage is required to be proved. As a general rule either
the presence or absence of malice does not matter. But in some cases deviation from the rule
has been made.

In Christe Vs Davey The extent of noise & the amount of disturbance caused there by was
ignored & it was held that the noise which arose due to the practice of lawful profession, &
without any malice, could not be considered to be actionable nuisance.

In Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd. Vs Emmett It was held that presence of malice was a
factor in determining liability for noise amounting to nuisance. The court said that even on
his won land was nuisance, & the defendant was liable in damages.