w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Democratic Youth Federation of India v/s Union of India & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY LTD. [Active] CIN = U36900WB1927PLC005621

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999KA1942PTC000292

    I.A. Nos. 8 & 14 in W.P.(C) No. 213 of 2011 with Commt.Pet.(Crl) No. D23948 of 2012 in W.P.(C) No. 213 of 2011

    Decided On, 09 October 2012

    At, Supreme Court of India


    For the Appearing Parties: Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Deepak Prakash, Beneesh Karat, Leena Nair, Usha Nandini, . J.S. Attri, Sr. Advocate, Asha G. Nair, T.M. Singh, D.S. Mahra, Pinky Anand, Sr. Advocate, D.N. Goburdhan, Aayash Chandra, K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Ramesh Babu M.R., Jay Savla, Renuka Sahu, B. Balaji, P. Krishnamoorthy, M. Palani, R. Rakesh Sharma, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan, Movita, K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Manjit Singh, AAG.(Har.), Kamal Mohan Gupta, S. Chandra Shekhar, Kumar Anurag Singh, Shankar Chillarge, Asha G.Nair, C.K. Sucharita, Rumi Chanda, K.N. Singh, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, D.K. Sinha, H. Wahi, Jesal, S. Panda, Riku Sharma, Navnit Kumar for M/s. Corporte Law Group, K.N. Madhusoodhnan, M.T. George, Sunil Fernandes, Vernika Tomar, Astha Sharma, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Gaurav Bhatia, Pragati Neekhra, G. Prakash, Adv Radha Shyam Jena, Rakhi Ray, Milind Kumar, Prerna Mehta, Advocates.

Judgment Text

Swatanter Kumar, J.

This order is passed in furtherance to the earlier orders of this Court dated 13.5.2011 and 5.8.2011. The Committee constituted under those orders was required to make specific answers to the queries raised in the order dated 5.8.2011. However, no satisfactory answer has been furnished to the Court.

2. The Committee constituted consists of Director General of ICMR and the Commissioner (Agriculture), who was required to conduct scientific study on the question whether the use of Endosulfan would cause any serious health hazards to human being and would cause environmental pollution. Again, there is no specific answer provided by the Committee in its report filed before this Court.

3. One of the issues raised before us is that this Committee does not fully represent all the relevant stake holders, thus, is unable to examine all the facets and answer completely and with certainty, the queries of this Court. Thus, it is submitted that it will be appropriate to add more members to this Committee from relevant and specialized fields, who will help to come to a more definite conclusion. Such a constitution would enable the Committee to express a definite conclusion and assist the Court better to finally dispose of the petition in accordance with law.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the various parties, we are of the considered view that the Director General of Health Services, Government of India, two scientists, one from the ICMR and the other Joint Secretary of Plant Protection, Ministry of Agriculture and the Member Secretary of the Central Pollution Control Board shall be the additional members to this Committee henceforth. This Committee shall hold its meeting at the earliest, and in any case, not later than one week from today.

5. The issues in addition to the queries raised by this Court in its earlier orders, which are required to be answered by the Committee specifically shall be inter alia, but primarily as follows:

1. What is the exact quantity of Endosulfan formulation, dust form or any other form or raw material as is available in India as of today?

2. Whether use of Endosulfan should at all be remitted or will it be in the greater human and environmental interest to ban the use of Endosulfan in its entirety?

3. If the use of balance Endosulfan, available as of now, is not permissible, in that event, how much Endosulfan can be exported to other countries on the lines as was permitted by this Court vide interim order passed earlier by this Court?

4. If the answer to question No.2 is in the negative, whether is it possible to destroy the entire balance Endosulfan in any form or raw material and what shall be the cost economic ramification of such destruction?

5. The Committee shall take into consideration the views expressed by different State Governments and if it considers it appropriate it may hear the stake holders who are present and represented before this Court.

6. The Committee shall submit its report positively within six weeks from today. Needless to note that this petition is pending before this Court now for years only awaiting a definite view of the Union of India in this regard. Needless to again mention that interim orders had been passed as it was not in the interest of human health or environment to use Endosulfan.

7. We make it clear that we

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

will not be inclined to grant any further time to the Committee and do express a definite hope that the report will be placed within the time granted by this Court, as it is not possible for this Court to pass any further direction without having the opinion of the Expert Committee before it. 8. List these matters on 20th November, 2012 with the report of the Committee.

LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.

Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box