Gauri Maulekhi v. Union of India, Original Application No. 486 of 2014 (May 4, 2016)
\nNational Green Tribunal<\/p>\n
A community member filed a case with the National Green Tribunal to force regulators to control toxic effluent and fly ash being discharged by a paper manufacturer, Century Pulp and Paper (\u201cCentury\u201d) .<\/p>\n
The Tribunal found that although Century has permission to operate under air and water pollution laws, it is obligated to keep pollution discharges within legal parameters.\u00a0 A Joint Inspection team convened by the Tribunal discovered significant pollution problems downsteam of the pulp and paper mill and recommended improvements to Century\u2019s pollution control systems.<\/p>\n
Century attempted to lay blame for water pollution in the Gola River on other manufacturing industries operating in the same area, but the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating: \u201ca fact remains that [Century] had contributed to the environmental pollution in some measure as aforesaid. Degree of contribution to pollution is immaterial while deciding the liability of polluter.\u201d Para. 28.<\/p>\n
The Tribunal ordered Century to comply with pollution control recommendations provided by the Joint Inspection Team within three months and pay a significant fine.\u00a0 The Tribunal also constituted a team of scientists to carry out a study of the Gola River to ascertain the extent of environmental degradation and make recommendations for measures to restore the waterway to the State of Uttrakhand.\u00a0 Para. 31.<\/p>\n
The Tribunal ordered Century to pay costs to the community member who filed the case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gauri Maulekhi v. Union of India, Original Application No. 486 of 2014 (May 4, 2016) National Green Tribunal A community member filed a case with the National Green Tribunal to force regulators to control toxic effluent and fly ash being discharged by a paper manufacturer, Century Pulp and Paper (\u201cCentury\u201d) . The Tribunal found that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","resource-topic":[35,344,112,353,113],"resource-type":[528],"resource-category":[30097],"content-for-websites":[30103],"region":[689,542],"class_list":["post-12641","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource-topic-access-to-justice","resource-topic-industrial-water-pollution","resource-topic-pollution-water","resource-topic-rivers","resource-topic-water-resources","resource-type-cases","resource-category-legal","content-for-websites-notable-cases","region-india","region-south-asia"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource\/12641","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/resource"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12641"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12641"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"resource-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-topic?post=12641"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-type?post=12641"},{"taxonomy":"resource-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-category?post=12641"},{"taxonomy":"content-for-websites","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/content-for-websites?post=12641"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=12641"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}