Category: Application of Environmental laws

ISSUE:

Whether an order passed ordering a suit for perpetual injunction to remove a nuisance and for providing damages on account of the same was sustainable or not?

RULE:

No private person can claim a right to foul an ordinary drain by discharging into it what it was not intended to carry off, and then throw on the Municipality an obligation to alter the drain to remedy the nuisance that he has produced; nor can he say that other persons must meanwhile put up with such nuisance.

The sewer is only a kutcha drain and was intended for the mere drainage of surface water. For these purposes, the slight, obstacle to the flow of the drainage water at the culvert was of little or no importance; for the small quantity of drainage water held back by that obstacle is not offensive and soon evaporates. The discharge of the Defendant's refuse liquid into the drain is of a different situation altogether as it is much more voluminous in nature and the defendant cannot blame the Municipality for its stagnation.

Carrying on an offensive trade to interfere with another's health and comfort or his occupation of property has been constantly held in England to be a legal nuisance against which the Courts will give relief.

An extract from Ogston v. Aberdeen District Tramways Company L. R. provided a precedent to the present case where the following argument was used, “It is an absolutely untenable proposition that any one may create a nuisance and shelter themselves from responsibility by suggesting that somebody else is under a legal responsibility to remove it.”

If no injunction is issued, there will be nothing to prevent the defendant from aggravating the present nuisance by further enlarging his factory and discharging still more refuse into the drain.

ISSUE:

Whether the operation of an oil expeller and flour mill in a residential building constitutes a private nuisance and can be restrained through an injunction?

RULE:

Using the rule established in Dhanna Lal v Chittar Singh (AIR 1959 Madh Pra 240), it is concluded that even in a noisy locality, if there is a substantial addition to the noise by the introduction of some machine, instrument, or performance at defendant's premises which materially affects the physical comforts of the occupants of the plaintiff's house, then also the noise will amount to actionable nuisance.

ISSUE:

Whether the defendant’s brick-grinding machine, situated near the plaintiff’s medical clinic, constituted a private nuisance by generating excessive dust that interfered with the plaintiff’s use of his property, causing discomfort to him and his patients and whether the damage caused to the plaintiff was entitled to a legal remedy ?

RULE:

Nuisance is an act or omission which is an interference with, disturbance or annoyance to a person in the exercise or enjoyments of a right belonging to him as a member of the public, (when it is a public nuisance), or his ownership or occupation of land or of some easement, private, or other right used or enjoyed in connection with land, (when it is a private nuisance)

All that the law requires is that when an act amounts to public nuisance, an individual can sue in his own right only if he is able to prove particular damage to himself i.e., damage which is particular to him as opposed to the damage or inconvenience caused to the public at large or to a section of the public.

Every injury is considered to be substantial which a reasonable person considers to be so.

Causing of actual damage by the act complained of as a nuisance is beside the point. If actual damage or actual injury were to be the criterion a person will have to wait before the injury becomes palpable or demonstrable before instituting a suit or its abatement.

ISSUE:

Whether by affirmative action a court can compel a statutory body to carry out its duty to the community by constructing sanitation facilities at great cost and on a time-bound basis?

RULE:

The public power of the magistrate under Section 133 CrPC is a public duty to the members of the public who are victims of the nuisance, and so he shall exercise it when the jurisdictional facts are present as here. Thus, the Magistrate can compel municipality to make drains and improve sewerage affecting the health and convenience of the residents.

The criminal procedure code operates against statutory bodies and others regardless of the cash they possess, even as human rights under Part III of the Constitution have to be respected by the State regardless of budgetary provision. Likewise, Section 123 of the Act has no saving clause when the municipal council is penniless.

Judicial discretion when facts for its exercise are present is mandatory.

ISSUE:

Whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is liable for the death of an individual caused by negligence by failing to maintain trees in the public?

What is the limitation period to file a suit under Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act of 1957?

RULE:

The Municipal Corporation owes a duty in ensuring that trees in the public that are old, dry and dead are to be handled with care immediately to prevent any damage to the passerbys.

When the owner of a tree has a constructive knowledge of the harmful condition the tree is in, they owe a duty of care to the general public.

The limitation period of 6 months under Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is applicable to suits filed for actions done by the Corporation within the limits of the Act and not for tortuous negligence cases. The limitation period of 2 years in Article 82 of the Limitation Act 1963 would be applicable to tortuous negligence cases.

ISSUE:

Whether the Municipal Corporation owes a duty of care with respect to maintaining the public trees due to statutory obligation?

Whether the death of Jayantilal was a direct cause of the negligence of the corporation thus triggering tortious liability?

RULE:

The court has the duty to determine if the widening the scope of duty of care is in consonance or goes against public policy. Duty is subjective to facts and circumstances of each care and is dependent on interpretation of the law, predictability and proximity.

Negligence is inclusive of both actions and omissions, which necessitates a violation of duty that ends up in an injury. A violation of statutory obligation may end up in tortious liability if the legal provisions entitle a personal action right.

Public officials are usually not liable for omissions but are rather liable for wrong acts, unless the law orders an obligation on the public authority to act.

ISSUE:

Whether the limitation period under Article 36 or Article 120 of Limitation Act, 1908 would be applicable?

RULE:

Negligence while performing a duty is only to decide if the governmental actions have resulted in not compensating an individual for the losses caused. A common man should not have to bear the brunt of actions of the government which are in fact injurious.

The computation of limitation period for Article 36 of Limitation Act, 1908 would begin from the date when either malfeasance/misfeasance/date of damage/date of filing claim/rejecting the claim took place.

ISSUE:

Whether the appellant’s negligence to take care of the molasses tank was the direct cause of the damage to the crop or whether the damage causes was too remote in respect to an independent event?

Whether the proof backs the compensation of Rs 14,700 as a just compensation with respect to the damages?

RULE:

The principle of legal causation with respect to liability and quantification of damages of the neighbor principle indicates that an individual must not only take utmost care but should also ensure to not inflict injury recklessly.

The rule of strict liability requires that the person storing non natural things on their land owes a duty in the situation that the things stores escapes and inflicts damages to others.

The principle of “novus actus interveniens” (intervention of a new act) is applicable only when it can be proved that the act was caused by a stranger.