DATE DOWNLOADED: Tue Apr 30 16:27:19 2024

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Citations:
Please note: citations are provided as a general guideline. Users should consult their preferred
citation format's style manual for proper citation formatting.

Bluebook 21st ed.

Deepali Katiyar, The Taj Trapezium Case: An Analysis, 4 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL RSCH. 1
(2022).

ALWD 7th ed.

Deepali Katiyar, The Taj Trapezium Case: An Analysis, 4 Indian J.L. & Legal Rsch. 1
(2022).

APA 7th ed.

Katiyar, Deepali. (2022). The Taj Trapezium Case: An Analysis. Indian Journal of Law
and Legal Research, 4, 1-2.

Chicago 17th ed.

Deepali Katiyar, "The Taj Trapezium Case: An Analysis," Indian Journal of Law and
Legal Research 4 (2022): 1-2

McGill Guide 9th ed.

Deepali Katiyar, "The Taj Trapezium Case: An Analysis" (2022) 4 Indian JL & Legal
Rsch 1.

AGLC 4th ed.

Deepali Katiyar, 'The Taj Trapezium Case: An Analysis' (2022) 4 Indian Journal of Law
and Legal Research 1

MLA 9th ed.

Katiyar, Deepali. "The Taj Trapezium Case: An Analysis." Indian Journal of Law and
Legal Research, 4, 2022, pp. 1-2. HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

Deepali Katiyar, 'The Taj Trapezium Case: An Analysis' (2022) 4 Indian JL & Legal
Rsch 1 Please note: citations are provided as a general guideline.
Users should consult their preferred citation format's style manual for proper
citation formatting.

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:
Copyright Information
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume IV Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

THE TAJ TRAPEZIUM CASE: AN ANALYSIS

Deepali Katiyar, Banasthali Vidyapith, Jamnalal Bajaj School of Legal Studies

INTRODUCTION

The objective behind the legal action in MC Mehta v Union of India , popularly known as the
Taj Trapezium Case, is to end the contamination while encouraging the development of the
industry. Sustainable Development, Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pay Principle, and
Article 21, 48A, 49 of the Constitution were pragmatic by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

In this case, the Appeal has filed the danger to the fading beauty of the Taj Mahal to raise the
Air (prevention and control of pollution) Act 1981, Water (prevention and control of pollution)
Act 1974, the Environmental Protection act 1986 for the resolution of replacement of the 292
industries to avoid releases produced by coke or coal consuming industries having a damaging
effect on Taj and people living in the Taj Trapezium Zone, and further to direct them to
changeover natural gas to natural fuel.

There were 4 NEERI reports, 2 VARADHARAJAN reports and a few reports by the State
Pollution Control Board. These reports had exactly recommended the relocation of the
industries from the TTZ.

JUDGMENT

Applying the above-declared principles and the articles, the Supreme Court ordered the 292
industries which were causing pollution in TTZ, to shift over to natural gas for natural fuel.
The diligence which isn't in the situation to achieve gas connection for any purpose were
needed to stop performing with the aid of coke and coal in TTZ.

The workmen employed in the industries who do not intend to relocate/obtain natural gas and
for closure have been in continuous service (as defined in section 25B of the Industrial Dispute

1 1987 AIR 1086

Page: 1
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume IV Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

Act 1947) for not less than one year in the industries concerned before the said date. They shall
be paid compensation in terms of section 25 F (b) of the ID Act.

These workmen shall also be paid in addition to six years as added compensation. Also, the
workmen hired in the 292 industries got some rights and benefits: The workmen shall have the
permanence of employment at the new town and place where the industry is erased. The terms
and conditions of their employment shall not be altered to their detriment. Workmen should be
treated as active employment and the workmen shall be paid their full wages with continuity
of service.

The Supreme Court received a writ petition from Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra
regarding the operation of limestone quarries in the Mussoorie Hill range, India.

It was argued that the quarries caused a hazard to a healthy environment and affected the
perennial water springs. The Court appointed an expert commission (the "Bhargav
Committee") for the purpose of examining the lime- gravestone chases.

They divided all lime- gravestone chases into three orders according to the grade of the adverse
impact of the mining operations (order A had the least pronounced adverse impact, order B had
a more pronounced adverse impact and order C had been directed to be removed).

This landmark judgment in the environmental law jurisprudence of our country has set clear
guidelines regarding pollution control. The Supreme Court did not fail placing reliance upon
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty
and also upon directive principles of state policy and fundamental duties as provided in the
Indian Constitution.

Page: 2