YLS, moving down to the last issue i.e, III.Whether the Boost Arya Ltd.

is liable to pay the award

money for the loss of human life, compensation and medical reimbursement for sickness caused,
death of domestic/wild animals and harm caused to the ecology? SAME….applellant is not liable to
pay the award money directed by the NGT. The counsel would post 4 grounds to substantiate the
same. 1. Applicability of doctrine of public necessity. SAME… the doctrine is derived from the maxim
“Salus Populi Suprema Lex” i.e, Welfare of the people is of paramount importance. YLS, in the case
of “Malvere v. Spinke” the court observed to achieve the public good the property, liberty and life of
an indi. Can be placed in the jeopardy incase of existing, immediate and overwhelming necessity.
(You can put a person’s life in danger to achieve eco. Development). YLS, same…..in the present case
setting up of a CPC Plant was a matter of urgent necessity so as to increase the GDP and to make the
state self-sufficient. In the case of “Kuttisankaran Nair v. Kumaran Nair the term “Public interest”
means a subject matter in which the rights of the public or a section of the public is interested.
Interest of general public which was further explained in the case of court on its own motion , as a
comprehensive expression intended to achieve the socio eco. Justice for the people of the state. YLS,
in the present case the appellant cannot be held liable for the disruption caused to the flora and
fauna as they were working or the betterment of the society and had taken proper steps to ensure
that their surrounding is not damaged because of their actions.

2. Act of third party- exception to rule of absolute liability. SAME….. in the case of Box v. Jubb, the
defendant owned a reservoir which overflowed as a result of a blockage in the drain by a third party
unknown to the defendant. The court held that the defendant would not be liable for the damage
caused to the plaintiff since the damage was a result of the act of a third person. YLS, Here in the
present case the tribals are the third party. the leakage in the pipes were a result of the tribals using
spades and other digging tools for digging the roots of the tuberous plants which led making cracks
in the pipes that ultimately resulted in the leakage causing soil and water pollution in the buffer
zone.

Moving further to the last ground, The industry was not solely responsible for the damages caused.
SAME….In the present case also the appellant cannot be held as the sole reason for the damages
caused to the environment, flora and fauna and the people living in the villages nearby. The post-
mortem report of the animals recorded chemical toxicity as a cause of death . However, the
pathological test could not ascertain the exact cause of the ailments. The appellants has acted with
utmost care in the formulation of its policies. YLS, the counsel further in the case of Sree Kottam
Tulasi Reddy V. M/S Sns Starch Limited the court observed that there is no material to establilsh that
the closure of the college was related to the activity of the industry. Here in the present case, the
industry cannot be held to be responsible for the damage caused. YLS, the counsel Humbly pleads
that on the basis of above mentioned claims the award of compensation i.e, 27 Crore should not be
awarded. With that I would be resting my arguments and if there are no preliminary inquiry the
counsel seeks it permission to proceed with the prayer. MUCH OBLIGED!

RESPONDENT

With the prior permission of this Honble court the co-counsel seeks its permission to proceed
further. Much Obliged! Counsel seeks its permission to address the bench collectively as your
lordship. MOYL. Your lordship proceeding further, I co-councel from the respondents side would be
dealing with the next two grounds those are- Thirdly; They are tribal people and fourthly:
Negligence on part of the industry. It is humbly submitted before the honble court that the rights of
the respondents have been violated u/a 244(1) and the fifth schedule of the constitution. it can be
very well quoted that there exists a unique connection between the tribals and the natural resources
Since, they are entirely dependent upon the forest, forest lands and the natural resources. YLS,
despite getting the industry established it should be the responsibility of the appellants to ensure
that no harm is caused to the people and surrounding environment. In the case of Samatha v. State
of Andhra Pradesh & ors, AIR 1997 SC 3297, State Of Kerala And Another v. PeoplesUnion For
Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit And Others YLS may refer to page…., para……., line…… of the
compendium. The case talked about the lack of exposure of the tribals to the civilization. Further
the Co-councel submits that in the present case also the “Khabo” tribes that lived around the
industry had no exposure to civilization before and it becomes the prime responsibility of the
industry to ensure their rights and lives have been protected.

Coming down to the fourth ground, that there has been negligence on part of the industry. SAME…. .
case of Mukesh Textile Mills Ltd. v. H.R. Subramanya Sastry, to prevent any activity causing
environmental pollution. The court based liability on two grounds- Duty to take reasonable care and
the land was put to non-natural use. The court held that in both the situation, a duty situation
emerges and the appellant must be liable for the consequences of escape of fluid from the premise.
YLS in another case Donoghue v. Stevenson Lord Atkins stated the 'neighbour' principle. YLS the
term “Neighbour” states those persons who are either closely or directly affected by the act. Here In
the present case, the acts of the appellant in either of the ways affected the lives of the tribals living
nearby. The industry shouldhave taken reasonable care to avoid acts which may cause damage to the
neighborhood. YLS, the industry should have taken reasonable care while dealing with such toxic
chemicals. The negligence was on part of the industry that while dealing with such chemical
substance they should have kept the entire area under surveillance. A company’s disregard for its
neighbors’ health and well-being is against the law; that company must be held legally accountable.

YLS, Dealing with the last issue i.e, Whether The Boost Arya Ltd. Liable To Pay The Award Money For
The Loss Of Human Life, Compensation And Medical Reimbursement For Sickness Cost, Death Of
Domestic Or Wild Animals And Harm Caused To The Ecology? And to substantiate the same the
counsel would pose three grounds those are- first, III.1. Society can develop even without harming
the environment. 2. The compensation awarded by NGT was reasonable 3.Applicability of Polluter
Pays Principle.

Dealing with the first ground Society can develop even without harming the environment. YLS, A
point has been reached in the history when we must shape our actions throughout the world with
more prudent care for the environmental consequences . as seen in the case of “S. Jagannath v. UOI”
the court talked about the concept of Sustainable development. The term sustainable development
is defined as the development that means the needs of the present without compromising the
future generation to fulfil the needs of the present generation. YLS, in the case of “Thirumalpad v.
Union of India and Ors”, Principle of proportionality” was observed that stated the protection of
environment on the one hand and to undertake necessary development measures on the other
hand. YLS, in the present case although the Government of Silsa wanted to raise the GDP of the
State, the appellant after installing the CPC Plant in the state should have kept in mind the
reasonable precautions to be taken for the protection of the environment. YLS in the present case,
Though the appellants claimed that they had discharged the chemicals in the buffer zone this cannot
be taken as a ground since there has been soil pollution because of the act of the appellant. It is very
rightly said in the case of “M.C. Mehta v. Mussorrie Hills, there cannot be commercialization of the
natural ingredients at the cost of the irreversible damage caused to the nature.

YLS, proceeding with the second ground, The compensation awarded by NGT was reasonable.
SAME……in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the word pollution has been defined as a civil
wrong. ( it is a Tort committed against the community as a whole.) The court further held that Art.
48(A) and 51A (g) have to be considered in the light of Art. 21. In the present case also the leakage in
the effluent pipes not only caused pollution to the land but also to the water. It can be very well
seen that many people got affected due to the spillage caused and 2 people lost their life. Apart
from the death of humans, several animals have also lost their lifes. YLS, it can be further seen in the
case of Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action and others v. Union of India and others that the soil
had become unfit for cultivation and several villagers residing nearby alleged to have contrated to
the disease due to the pollution. YLS, here in the present case the CPC Plant should be held liable to
pay the compensation amount of RS. 27 Crores as the person carrying on such activity is liable to
make good cause to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took
reasonable care while carrying on his activity.

YLS, coming to the last ground Applicability of Polluter Pays Principle. SAME……. As per the polluter
pays principle the polluter must pay for the damage done to the human beings and environment.
The court in the case of Ramji Patel v. Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch held that the polluter
is duty bound to compensate for the harm caused to the environment. It was further interpreted by
the court as absolute liability. (Dangerous thing. Escape, hazardous in nature) Justice Dalveer
Bhandari and Justice H.L. Datta rightly observed that “the polluter pays principle demand that the
financial cost of preventing or remedying the damage caused by pollution should lie with the
undertaking which cause the pollution or produce the good which cause the pollution. The Polluter
Pays principle is applied after the environmental degradation has taken place. The polluter not only
compensates the victims but also paysfor the restoration of the environment. Art. 51A (g) of the
constitution imposes as one of the fundamental duties on every citizen the duty to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion
for living creatures; the same was observed in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A.
Nagaraja and Ors. YLS, Boost Arya Ltd. being a legal entity has to abide by the constitution. They had
a responsibility to safeguard their surroundings including the flora and fauna in addition to
establishing the industry to raise the state’s GDP. YLS, the RIO DECLARATION that was adopted I
1992 also recognizes the polluter pays principle. Hence, in the present case there was not only loss
of human lives but also leakage resulted in the loss of wildlife. YLS, the counsel Humbly pleads that
on the basis of above mentioned claims the award of compensation i.e, 27 Crore should be awarded.
With that I would be resting my arguments and if there are no preliminary inquiry counsel seeks it
permission to proceed with the prayer. MUCH OBLIGED!