SC seeks explanation on farmers' plea

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has sought replies from Grasim Industries Ltd and others on a petition by farmers seeking closure of its chemical plant in Ujjain for allegedly polluting water sources and damaging crops.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan asked Grasim Industries (chemical division) and the Madhya Pradesh government to respond to the petition alleging that crops had been damaged due to effluents and chemicals released from the factory at Nagda in Ujjain district.

Challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling, farmers alleged that the court had erred in setting aside the order of a sub-divisional magistrate who ordered closure of the factory on January 27, 2006 under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Even the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board had found the Birla group company plant was polluting water, the petition said. The board said that chloride and salt were much more than the specified standard for drinking water, it added.

The group of five farmers alleged that polluting drinking water was causing threat to human lives and their livelihood.
According to the petition, around 23 farmers of Azimabad Pardi village had moved an application before before the sub-divisional officer of Nagda on January 5, 2005 seeking to stop the release of effluents from the plant as their crops were being burnt and water sources polluted.

After a probe, the village revenue officer said in a report on January 9, 2005 that wheat crops in 28 hectares and gram crops in 27 hectares were destroyed. Besides, acid was found in village wells due to release of chemicals by the factory.

"There was a joint inspection and the report of the State Pollution Board and the Agriculture Department to show that the water has been polluted and the crops have been destroyed because of the chemical released in the water," said the petition filed through advocate Vikas Upadhaya.

However, the Additional Sessions Judge at Khachrod on Grasim's plea had set aside the government's closure order.
Even the High Court had upheld the decision of the lower court and allowed Grasim to run the factory while observing that "the preliminary prohibitory order for closure of the concerning industries immediately appears to be illegal and that had rightly been set aside."

However, Grasim had made a statement before the High Court that the company was observing necessary and adequate measures for the treatment of waste water and treated water was being used for watering the plantation.