Judiciary
Read the news report below and identify the following aspects:
â What is the case about?
â Who has been the beneficiary in the case?
â Who is the petitioner in the case?
â Visualise what would have been the different arguments put forward by the company.
â What arguments would the farmers have put forward?The Supreme Court orders REL to pay Rs. 300 crore to Dahanu farmers—
Our Corporate Bureau 24 March, 2005.
Mumbai: The Supreme Court has ordered Reliance Energy to pay Rs. 300 crores to farmers who grow the chikoo fruit in the Dahanu area outside Mumbai. The order comes after the chikoo growers petitioned the court against the pollution caused by Reliance’s thermal power plant.
Dahanu which is 150 km from Mumbai, was a self–sustaining agricultural and horticultural economy known for its fisheries and forests just over a decade ago, but was devastated in 1989 when a thermal power plant came into operation in the region. The next year, this fertile belt saw its first crop failure. Now 70 per cent of the crop of what was once the fruit bowl of Maharashtra is gone. The fisheries have shut and the forest cover has thinned. Farmers and environmentalists say that fly ash from the power plant entered ground water and polluted the entire eco-system. The Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority ordered the thermal station to set up a pollution control unit to reduce sulphur emissions, and in spite of a Supreme Court order backing the order the pollution control plant was not set up even by 2002. In 2003, Reliance acquired the thermal station and re-submitted a schedule for installation process in 2004. As the pollution control plant is still not set up, the Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority asked Reliance for a bank guarantee of Rs. 300 crores.
1. This is a case of pollution by Reliance thermal power plant.
2. The farmers has been the beneficiary in this case.
3. The chikoo growers of Dahanu are the petitioners in this case.
4. The main contention of the Dhahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authorty and the Supreme Court was about setting up of the pollution control plant. Reliance acquired the plant only in 2003, so it would have pleaded for the further extension of the time limit for the setting up of the pollution control plant. I would have also argued that the pollution was not wholly of its making as it had acquired the plant in 2003. Accordingly it would have argued for the reduction in the penalty.
5. The farmers might had argued that since Reliance had failed in its commitment to install, the pollution control unit in 2004, it did not had intentions to do it. So it must be penalized more.
Sponsor Area
Describe the composition of the Supreme Court of India.
Describe the composition of a High Court in a state.
Briefly describe the powers of a High Court.
Write a short note on High Court’s power of Judicial Review.
What are the different ways in which the independence of the judiciary is ensured? Choose the odd ones out.
Describe the procedure of removing a judge of High Court provided in the Constitution.
Does independence of the judiciary mean that the judiciary is not accountable to any one? Write your answer in not more than 100 words.
Mention the age of retirement of a Judge of High Court.
What do you understand by PIL or Public Interest Litigation?
Write a short note on Lok Adalat.
Sponsor Area
Sponsor Area