TEAM CODE: HLC/MC&I/6.

5/03

LATE RUPINDER SINGH SURI MOOT COURT HALL

HALDIA LAW COLLEGE

Paper 6.5: MOOT COURT & INTERNSHIP

(EXAMINATION YEAR 2024)

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL SIDE) NO.__OF 2024

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

IN THE MATTER OF

CALCUTTA TANNERIES' MATTER ...................................................PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF INDIA..................................RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON'BLE JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3
2 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 4
3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 5
4 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 6
5 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 7
ISSUE I : The 550 tanneries situated mainly in the 4 areas of 7
Calcutta do not have an efficient effluent treatment plant or
waste management mechanism.
ISSUE II : The tanneries had to apply for consent under the Water 9
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, however, no one
applied till 1989, and around 1989 only around hundred tanneries
applied for it.
ISSUE III : Whether it is possible to set up a common effluent treatment 11
plant for all the tanneries?
ISSUE IV : The site where the new leather complex is being set up is a 13
part of the wetland.
6 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 17
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 18
 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) AIR 1473,
2. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India1 (Tanneries case) 1996 5 SCC 647.
3. T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors, WP (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Kanpur Tanneries’ matter) (1996) 4 SCC 351
5. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.

BOOKS
1. Banerjee, B.P, Writ Remedies, 4th Edition, 2008, LexisNexis, Buttersworth Wadhwa
Publication.
2. Basu D.D., Constitution of India, 14th Edition 2009, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Nagpur.
3. Jaswal P.S., Environmental Law, 2nd Edition 2006, Allahabad Law Agency.
4. Karkara G.S., Environmental Law, 1st Edition, 1999, Central Law Publications.

STATUTES
1. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
2. Constitution of India , 1949.

DATABASE
1. Indiankanoon.org
2. lexforti.com
3. casemine.com
4. livelaw.in
5. ipleaders.in
 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This memorandum is submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, invoking the Court's original jurisdiction to address issues of
environmental pollution and public health arising from the operation of leather tanneries in
Kolkata. The petition seeks the Court's intervention to enforce fundamental rights guaranteed
under Articles 21 (Right to Life) and 48A (Protection and improvement of environment and
safeguarding of forests and wildlife) of the Constitution of India. The petition also calls for the
implementation of effective effluent treatment measures and compliance with environmental
regulations to prevent further ecological degradation and protect public health.
 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Kolkata, the capital of West Bengal, has always been a leading leather hub of India. Its leather
industry covers the entire manufacturing process. More than 500 tanneries are situated mainly in
Tangra, Tiljala, Topsia and Pagla Danga areas of the city. Few years back, these areas used to be
on the outskirts of the city. However, with the speedy growth and expansion, the area became
densely populated with time. And as a result, the tanneries could not expand and modernize.
They were working without an Effluent Treatment Plant and causing great pollution in the
surroundings as well as in the River Ganga.

2. Sensing the seriousness of the issue and damage to environment as well as humans, the
Government of West Bengal, in 1992, decided to relocate the tanneries to an area big enough to
contain the tanneries along with an efficient Effluent Treatment Plant and other facilities which
would help in treating the solid and liquid waste, before discharging. The project planned was a
big one and the government had in mind to establish ‘Calcutta Leather Complex’ within an area
of around 507 hectares.

3. A petition was filed in public interest under article 32 of the Constitution of India. Though the
court initially gave directions for tanneries located in Kanpur, however after seeing the quantity
of untreated water being discharged in the Ganga, the court called upon the industries located in
other cities too on the banks of the Ganga to stop this unethical practice. The Cause of Action
arose when NEERI (National Environmental Engineering Research Institute) in one of its report
mentioned that ninety per cent of the tanneries located in Calcutta use chrome-based tanning
processes. It was observed by the inspection team that there was no system or method of
controlling both solid as well as liquid waste. There were also open drains destroying the ecology
and causing severe hygiene problems. The order given in Kanpur Tanneries matter provided that
the effluent or such waste is ten times more harmful then the domestic sewage water. Thus, the
carelessness of the state of West Bengal and the West Bengal Pollution Control Board is evident
as they have not stopped the environmental degradation from years.
 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I
The 550 tanneries situated mainly in the 4 areas of Calcutta do not have an efficient effluent
treatment plant or waste management mechanism.

ISSUE II
The tanneries had to apply for consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974, however, no one applied till 1989, and around 1989 only around hundred tanneries
applied for it.

ISSUE III
Whether it is possible to set up a common effluent treatment plant for all the tanneries?

ISSUE IV
The site where the new leather complex is being set up is a part of the wetland.
 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I : The 550 tanneries situated mainly in the 4 areas of Calcutta do not have an
efficient effluent treatment plant or waste management mechanism.

1. After the scope of matter in the Kanpur tanneries case expanded, there were still tanneries
functioning without consent and proper resources. In this case, around 550 tanneries located on
the bank of River Ganga were called upon to stop discharging untreated effluent into the river.
The tanneries were posing a major threat to the environment.

According to the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, following were the
conditions prevalent at the site of the Calcutta tanneries:
(1) there were no treatment facilities for the effluents, waste water drainage and collection
systems, as a consequence of which the untreated wastewater, flowing through open drains, was
posing serious environmental, health and hygiene problems;
(2) most of the tannery units were located in extremely congested and thickly populated areas,
affording little scope for the installation and modernization of effluent treatment plants.

2. On the State Government informed this Court that the Calcutta tanneries were being shifted
from their present location and the new location would be fully equipped with pollution control
devices. However, the State Government filed an application seeking a time extension of 3 years
in August, 1993. Though the court considered the application, but gave the extension of only 3
months for shifting the industries and erecting a common effluent plant. The tanneries had to
exercise one choice: Either the tanneries were to be allowed to remain in their present locations
but subject to the construction of a common effluent treatment plant; or they were to shift out to
a new government-constructed leather complex, with all the facilities for treating the effluents.

________________________________________________
1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A 25.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
3. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, s 16 and 17.
 8

3. The court further directed the Secretary, Small- Scale Industries, Government of West Bengal
to prepare a plan regarding the land for shifting industries and the compensation to be paid to the
industries. After analysing all the possibilities, it was stated that these tanneries were operating
from a substantial time period but has paid no heed to the environmental pollution control and
does not have enough space for even common ETPs to set-up. Now the only feasible and
practicable solution is to shift the tanneries to a new area.

4. The tanneries had to apply for consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974, however, no one applied till 1989, and around 1989 only around hundred tanneries
applied for it. The State Board issued a show-cause notice to the tanneries and as a result around
275 tanneries to apply for consent, however it was granted to none. Those tanneries submitted a
stamped paper that they were willing to move to any place as decided by the State government.

5. On this Court was informed that the estimated cost of the land in the new complex would be
Rupees 860.00 per sq. m. The learned counsel appearing for the Calcutta tanneries, however,
contended that the price suggested was on the higher side. Various suggestions for reducing the
cost of land were considered.

6. Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State of West Bengal, very fairly
stated that it would be possible for the State of West Bengal to meet 50% of the cost of the
project. He further states that the State will arrange the funds either from its own sources or from
financial institutions or other sources.

________________________________________________
1. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 98 (Kamal Law House, Calcutta, 5th edn.
2. M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law 38 (Wadhawa, Nagpur, 2001).
3. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, s 16 and 17.
 9

ISSUE II : The tanneries had to apply for consent under the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, however, no one applied till 1989, and around 1989 only
around hundred tanneries applied for it.

1. The court reiterated that after the treatment plant is constructed and the tanneries are shifted to
the new complex, 'effluent charge' shall be levied on the tanneries for reimbursing the amount
spent on the common effluent treatment plants in a phased manner.

2. Senior Counsel appearing for the Tanneries' Association stated that there was no objection to
relocate. The main difficulty was to set up an ETP. The State and Central Government along
with tanneries association must pool financial resources for the same.Thus, essentially what was
required to be worked out was the dynamics of accounting the costs involved in relocation and
setting up of the treatment plant.

3. Counsel appearing for the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, stated that individual notices
have been issued to all the tanneries to be relocated. The learned counsel for the tanneries has
brought to our notice that some of the tannery-owners are residing within the tannery premises.
The learned counsel further contends that after the tanneries are relocated, the residence part of
the premises may be permitted to remain with them.

4. Learned counsel appearing for about 208 Calcutta tanneries of Chinese origin, stated that it
was technically feasible to set up a common effluent treatment plant within the area where the
tanneries were situated. However, all this was contrary to the State Pollution Board’s contention
placed before the Court that the setting up of the common effluent treatment plant/plants at the
existing tanneries’ complexes was not possible and relocation was the only alternative available.

________________________________________________
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463.
2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, s 2(j).
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Kanpur Tanneries’ matter) (1996) 4 SCC 351
 10

5. Although the Board had repeatedly stated before this Court that the setting up of the common
effluent treatment plant/plants at the existing tanneries' complexes was not possible but despite
that this Court gave liberty to file a short affidavit indicating the details of the project.

6. The learned counsel for the Calcutta tanneries contended that the site where the new leather
complex is being set up is a part of the wetland.

7. However, it was observed in the Technical Report by the surveyor indicating that the new
leather complex does not fall within the area of the wetland. No material to the contrary has been
placed on record by the Calcutta tanneries. Therefore, the court rejects the contention of the
learned counsel that the new leather complex is a part of the wetland.

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act)
According to Section 24 of the Act, polluting or disposing in streams, wells, etc. is prohibited as
no one can knowingly dispose of any poisonous or polluting matter into any stream, well or on
land.
‘Pollution’ is defined u/s 2(e) as either water contamination or alteration in properties of water
which may be done by discharging sewage or trade effluents into water which is injurious to
public health or to health of other organisms or to any uses including domestic, commercial or
agricultural.
‘Stream’ may include river, any water course, inland water, sea and subterranean waters.
‘Trade effluent’ includes substances discharged from any premises like an industry, operation or
disposal system, other than domestic sewage.
Section 25 of the Act provides for consent from the State Board and restricts new outlets and
discharges or any industry or system likely to discharge the waste into water or on land. The
application for consent of State Board must be made as prescribed in the Act along with the fees.

________________________________________________

1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463.

2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, s 2(j).
3. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, s 2(k).
 11

Section 26 of the act provides for the situation where a person was discharging sewage or
effluents into the water before the commencement of the Act. In such a situation, provision under
section 25 is applicable to him subject to some modifications as mentioned in the Act.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

The preamble of the act states that: “An Act to provide for the protection and improvement of
environment and for matters connected therewith.”

This act is a result of the Stockholm conference in which India participated to take steps for
protection and improvement of environment and the prevention of hazards to human beings,
other living creatures, plants and property.
Thus, a clear reading of the above provisions leaves no doubt as to the violation of these
provisions by the Calcutta tanneries. As already mentioned in the facts, the tanneries neither had
the consent nor the prescribed system to function in that environment, causing great loss to its
surroundings. Thus, they must be held liable under the Water Act and The Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986.

ISSUE III : Whether it is possible to set up a common effluent treatment plant for all the
tanneries?

1. It is the duty of the citizens and the State to keep the environment clean and protect it. The
Indian Constitution contains specific provisions for environment protection under the chapters of
Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties. The absence of a specific provision
in the Constitution recognizing the fundamental right to a clean and wholesome environment has
been set off by judicial activism in recent times.

______________________________________________
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463.
2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, s 2(j).
3. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, s 2(k).
 12

2. Article 48A: It was added to DPSPs by 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India. It
provides for protection and improvement of the environment. It was brought as a result of
increasing International awareness and the Stockholm conference. It imposes an obligation on
the State to protect the environment from destruction.

3. Similarly, Article 51-A (g) imposes a Fundamental Duty on the citizens to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion
for living creatures.

ISSUE IV - The site where the new leather complex is being set up is a part of the wetland.

1. It was observed in this case that though there is no specific Fundamental Right relating to
protection of environment but with advent of law, and with various judgments of the Supreme
Court of India, Article 21, the reservoir of Fundamental rights has been extended to contain the
right to a clean and decent environment.

2. Article 48A and Article 51 A (g) of the Indian Constitution imposes a duty upon the
Government; Centre and State and the citizens respectively to protect and improve the
environment. This was also held by the court inT.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India
& Ors. Article 25(1) of UDHR guarantees ‘right to a standard of adequate living for health and
well-being of himself and his family.’

3. The term 'life' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution does not connote mere animal
existence. 3It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of
living, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure.

________________________________________________
1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 98 (Kamal Law House, Calcutta, 5th edn., 1998)
2. M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law 38 (Wadhawa, Nagpur, 2001).
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463.
4. Constitutional Provisions for the Protection of Environment with Relevant Case Laws at
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/environmental-law-article.pdf.
 13

4. In this case a PIL was presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to restrain the people from
discharging the trade effluents into the Ganga till the time they set up the required treatment
plants are established in the tanneries.

5. The petitioner in this case contended that neither the Government nor the people were
fulfilling their duty to protect the environment, and in this case, the Ganga from the pollution.
The petitioner also contended that the trade effluent discharged from tanneries was ten times
noxious when compared with the domestic sewage water which flows into the river from any
urban area. The respondents stated that due to lack of technology, resources and capital, it was
not possible to put in the required treatment plants and pleaded for some time to install pre-
treatment plants but at last, submitted that it was not at all possible for them to install a whole
system of treatment plant as they would not be able to meet its expenses.

6. The court held that ‘the State and Citizens were under a constitutional duty to protect and
improve the environment1 and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. And, it was
the duty of the State Government, through the State Boards, and the Central Government to use
the powers conferred upon them by statute to take all such measures as it deemed necessary or
expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and
preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. The Hon’ble Court observed that a
tannery which does not have a primary treatment plant cannot be given permission by giving an
example of an industry which cannot be allowed to exist if it does not pay minimum wages to its
workers.

7. Therefore, the court cannot choose the financial incapacity of the tanneries over the loss of
life, health and environment which is much more important.

________________________________________________

1. T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463.
4. Constitutional Provisions for the Protection of Environment with Relevant Case Laws at
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/environmental-law-article.pdf.
 14

This public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed by the Vellore
Citizens Welfare Forum against pollution which was being caused by the enormous discharge of
untreated effluent by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu.

8. Several tanneries operating in the State of Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated effluent
into agricultural fields, roadsides, waterways and open lands. The untreated effluent was finally
discharged in River Palar, which was the main source of water supply to the residents of the area.
According to a survey 35,000 hectares of agricultural land in the tanneries belt, had become
either partially or totally unfit for cultivation. This was the effect of about 170 types of chemicals
in the chrome-based tanning processes.It was revealed that 350 wells out of a total of 467 used
for drinking and irrigation purposes had been polluted as a result of which women and children
had to walk miles to get drinking water.

9 The Supreme Court had in various orders indicated that these tanneries were liable to pay
pollution fine and to compensate the affected persons as also pay the cost of restoring the
damaged ecology. There was evidence that the tanneries and other industries had been exhorted
for ten years to control pollution but to no avail. The court ordered the central Government to
constitute an authority and confer on it all powers necessary to deal with the situation. The
authority was to implement the precautionary principle and the “polluter pays” principle. It
would also identify the families who had suffered from the pollution and access compensation
and the amount to be paid by the polluters to reverse the ecological damage. The court required
the Madras High Court to monitor the implementation of its orders through a special bench to be
constituted and called a “Green Bench”

______________________________________________

1. T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463.
4. Constitutional Provisions for the Protection of Environment with Relevant Case Laws at
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/environmental-law-article.pdf.
 15

10. In this case, the Court made it clear many times that the tanneries which failed to either
relocate or set up an ETP should be shut down unconditionally. The court also laid down that the
area vacated by the tanneries was to be maintained as a green area in any form at the discretion
of the State Government. However, unlike the Kanpur Tanneries’ matter where the Court had
held that the environmental issues at stake outweighed the unemployment considerations, in the
present case, the workmen employed in the Calcutta tanneries were held to be entitled to certain
rights and benefits.

The workmen were to have continuity of employment at the new place where the tannery was
being shifted and the terms and conditions of their employment were also not to be altered to
their detriment. Further, the period between the closure of the tannery at its old site and its restart
at the place of relocation was to be treated as active employment and the workmen were to be
paid their full wages with continuity of service. All workmen agreeing to shift with the tanneries
were to be given one year’s wages as “shifting bonus” to help them settle at the new location.
However, the workmen employed in the tanneries, which failed to relocate, were to be deemed to
have been retrenched with effect from the closure dates of the tanneries.
With these directions, the case was transferred to the Calcutta High Court, which was held to be
in the best position to deal with the case. The “Green Bench” already functioning in the

In this decision we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in spite of being uncompromising in
securing the protection of the environment and prevention of pollution did not at the same time
overlook the interests of the hundreds of people working in these tanneries. Thus, while the

________________________________________________

1. T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463.
4. Constitutional Provisions for the Protection of Environment with Relevant Case Laws at
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/environmental-law-article.pdf.
 16

Court came to the conclusion that relocation was the only practical solution to the problem, it
also ensured that the Government took adequate steps not to inordinately burden the tanning
industry and its poor workers, economically.

Conclusion
Tanneries play an important role in the Indian economy mainly due to the large number of
employment opportunities generated by them for the people of economically weaker society.
However, the amount of environmental pollution escaped from the tanneries is increasing day by
day, damaging the ecology and causing severe health issues to the people living in the
surrounding areas. The main reason behind this damage is that the tanneries are set up in an area
which is over populated and there’s no scope for the tanneries to expand and set up the proper
requirements. There are various cases in which the people who work in the tanneries have no
other place to stay and they prefer to sleep in there. This congestion along with financial
incapacity to set up treatment plants are the most important causes of environmental degradation.
Many of them are still working without having consent of the State Board according to the Water
Act. They continue to discharge the solid, liquid or gaseous waste, which is also chemically
treated, into the water bodies acting as a continuous source of danger to the environment. There
is no doubt how far a country can progress if there’s some control over the environmental
degradation. It would result in better surroundings and working environment for the workers,
less health issues to the people living nearby and coming in contact of contaminated water and
restoring the original state of the rivers. The Supreme Court in the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
(Kanpur Tanneries’ matter) took a bold decision by giving more importance to the life of citizens
and the organisms over the financial condition of tanneries. The Ganga which has once been the
purest form of water resource has been polluted and is in a terrible state today. It has played and
will continue to play an important role in lives of millions of people.
 17

PRAYERS

Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it may be pleased to:

1. The 550 tanneries situated mainly in the 4 areas of Calcutta do not have an efficient
effluent treatment plant or waste management mechanism.
2. The tanneries had to apply for consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974, however, no one applied till 1989, and around 1989 only around
hundred tanneries applied for it.
3. Whether it is possible to set up a common effluent treatment plant for all the tanneries?
4. The site where the new leather complex is being set up is a part of the wetland.

Or

Pass any other order that it deems fit to the this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice, equity and
good conscience.
And for this the respondents is duly bound, shall humbly pray.

Respectfully
Submitted

Counsel for respondents

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Kailash Nath Rai, Moot Court Pre-Trial Preparation And Participation In Trial Proceedings
(Central Law Publication, 2nd edition)

J P S Sirohi and Sunil Sirohi, Moot Court, Pre-Trial Preparations & Participation in Trial
Proceedings (Allahabad Law Agency, 2nd edition

Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India (6th Ed. Vol. C)

M R Mallick & Sukumar Ray, Ganguly's Criminal Court, Practice and Procedure, (11 th
Edition)

Karkara G.S., Environmental Law, 1st Edition, 1999, Central Law Publications.

SITE

Constitutional Provisions for the Protection of Environment with Relevant Case Laws at,
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/environmental-law-
article.pdf.