• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Our Legal Correspondent

CHENNAI, Jan. 18

THE skin and hide tanners in Vellore district now have to pay a compensation of Rs 26.82 crore due to the environmental pollution caused by the tanneries, with the Madras High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the tannery units challenging the apportionment of the compensation among the 325 units.

Mr Justice P. Shanmugam said in his order that it was not for this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, to reappraise the technical aspect of the award of compensation by the Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payment of Compensation) Authority. The authority had considered the written as well as oral representation made by the Association of the Hides and Skin Tanners and Merchants.

"Hence, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness to interfere with the said finding," he observed.

The petitions had been filed by, among others, Shahida & Co and P. Abdul Khader Sahib & Co, to quash the order dated October 12, 2001 issued by the second respondent, Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payments of Compensation) Authority, awarding compensation of Rs 26.82 crore payable by the skin and hide tanners.

The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, constituted the Loss of Ecology Authority for Tamil Nadu comprising four members, headed by a retired Judge of the High Court.

The authority gave the award initially on March 7, 2001 fixing a compensation of Rs 26.82 crore payable by the tanneries in Vellore district. The Skin and Hide Tanners and Merchants Association challenged the award contending that the fixation of the compensation was not correct, more particularly when the award had provided for a methodology regarding apportionment of the said compensation among the various tanneries. The association was said to have made a representation on April 12, 2001 for adopting a uniform pattern of calculation for all the tanning units. A Division Bench of the High Court had directed the second respondent to consider the representation.

The current writ petition was filed after the apportioned order was passed by the authority on October 12, 2001.

The Judge said that the contention of the petitioners that they were not individually heard and no opportunity was given before the final order of the apportionment was made could not be accepted since the very order to reconsider the apportionment came to be passed only at the instance of the association.

There was no direction by the Division Bench that the individual member should be given an opportunity by the authority. The second respondent had considered the representation and passed the award.

Regarding the other contention of the petitioner that on the merits of the apportionment, each of the members had to be treated with reference to the nature of manufacture, production, etc, the judge said he was unable to go into this question of the apportionment as each of the points referred by the association had been considered by the authority before giving the final award.

As pointed out by the counsel for the authority, the polluting industries were liable to pay compensation and this process of awarding compensation had been pending for years, the court said. The authority having been appointed for the very purpose, it would be defeated if the matter had to be gone into once again on merits.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section
Anti-dumping duty fixed on butylene

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line