Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

TEXTILE PROCESSORS' ASSOCIATION, THROUGH ITS JT. SECRETARY MR. NITIN THAKKAR versus THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Decided
4 January 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 155 · 1996 INSC 17

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned. This Special Leave Petition filed by the Association seeks leave to file the appeal. The main grievance sought to be brought lo our notice by Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned senior counsel is that some industries of the petitioner-Association are outside the Zone and effluents discharged from these industries are not directly leading to Kharicut Canal affecting the water in 11 villages identified by the. High Court. Though the High Court had given positive finding in favour of the industries, nonetheless the High Court had directed them to contribute 1 per cent of the gross turnover. Many an industries which ~the petitioner-Association is representing, are running in losses. Consequently, each industry is required to pay the amount as directed by the High Court from their corpus and not from the profits.

pp. 155–156, margin F

Dr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned Senior counsel further points out that the units are already having temporary treatment plan and secondary treatment plan and they accumulate the effluents so that discharge would not arise. Unless the industries start working, it would be difficult to generate income by these industries; to comply. with the directions issued by the High Court. Therefore, by virtue of the order passed by the High Court practically all the industries, as found by the High Court, though were not discharging the effluents polluting the water leading to the 11 villages, were prevented to run the operations. Consequently, they are put to great loss. In view of these averments, we think it is a matter to be gone into not by us but by the High Court. We are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution for the reason they are matters for the High Court to be looked into. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file the application for review and in fitness of things, it would be open to each industry affected by the order to approach the High Court and place necessary facts before it and seek appropriate direction, if deemed necessary. Liberty is given to them to file the application as expeditiously as possible. It would be open to the High Court to dispose of the same according to exigency.

p. 156, margin A

The S.L.P. is accordingly disposed of. G.N. Petition disposed of.

p. 156, margin D