ORDER

1. Heard counsel on all sides.

2. The prayer in WP (PIL) No. 1888/03 is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Tate Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) to complete the dumping of slag by the side of the rivers, Subaranrekha and Kharkai, from Mango to Shastrinagar, including a stretch of 0.8 KMs lying adjacent to the building complex of the petitioner.

3. The prayer in WP (PIL) No. 2886/03 filed by the Administrator of a Cooperative Society of a residential complex, in Jamshedpur is for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the State Pollution Control Board to grant permission to TISCO for dumping of slag on the banks of river Kharkai so that the dumping work already started by TISCO could be completed.

4. These writ petitions are opposed by TISCO by contending that these are not Public Interest Litigations, but Private Interest Litigations, at the instance of the builders, who want their work to be got done by TISCO at its expense. Alternatively, it is submitted that an order has been issued by the State Pollution Control Board directing TISCO to stop the dumping work and hence TISCO was obliged to stop the work. It is further contended that in the said stretch of 0.8 KMs, if the dumping work is undertaken, that will encroach into the river itself, leading to the narrowing of the river at that spot leading to flooding on the other side of the river. It is stated that no relief should, be granted. In WP (PIL) No. 2886/03, the State Pollution Control Board has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that it has directed TISCO to stop the dumping work in view of the apprehended pollution of the river in question. It is further submitted that the Central Pollution Control Board had directed the State Pollution Control Board to follow the directions with regard to dumping of slag on the banks of the river and on river beds. The State of Pollution Control Board, therefore, has asked TISCO to stop the dumping work and to take steps to get the slag already dumped, removed from the bed of the river. It is also submitted that a report from the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) has been sought for by the State Pollution Control Board with regard to the impact of slag dumping by TISCO and its report is being awaited. It is, therefore, stated that no writ could or should be issued at this stage directing it to give permission to TISCO as prayed for in WP (PIL) No. 2886/03. The State Pollution Control Board has not been impleaded as a party respondent in WP (PIL) No. 1888/03.

5. The TISCO seems to have undertaken the work of dumping of slag of the banks of the two rivers in question with a view to construct a ring road to ease the traffic in the town. According to TISCO, substantial amounts have been spent in the project by using the slag in the industry and for developing a ring road in that area. But the work had to stop in view of the objection raised by the State Pollution Control Board. TISCO also found that in this area of 0.8 KMs the work could not be done since the creation of a bandh and the dumping of slag would result in narrowing of the river leading to floods, affecting the opposite bank of the river. According to the petitioners, leaving a gap of 0.8 KMs. in the manner in which it is done, would lead to floods in the area during rainy season and TISCO should be compelled to complete the work it has started. The claim of TISCO that the river at that point would get narrower leading to other consequences is also disputed by the petitioners. The Stand of the petitioners is that TISCO has deliberately stopped the dumping work leading to floods affecting the residents of the complex built by the petitioner in WP (PIL) No. 1888/03 as also the members of the Society in WP (PIL) No. 2886/03.

6. Even assuming that these two writ petition are in the nature of Public Interest Litigations, we are not satisfied that any direction, as sought for by the petitioners, could be issued at this stage. There is considerable controversy, whether the activity started by TISCO could lead to water pollution and environmental pollution, and, whether TISCO should be asked to undo what it has done. It is clear that the whole issue is pending before the State Pollution Control Board, and the Central Pollution Control Board and that is now the subject matter of study by NEERI. In this situation, the prayer in WP (PIL) No. 2886/03 to issue a direction to the State Pollution Control Board to permit TISCO to carry out the work could not be granted. Unless and until it becomes clear that there will be no environmental pollution or water pollution caused by the work started by TISCO the State Pollution Control Board cannot be compelled to permit TISCO to carry on the work, which it had started. Issuance of any such direction would tend to defeat the very object of the Environment (Protection) Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act. The prayer in WP (PIL) No. 2886/03 has, therefore, to be rejected.

7. As far as WP (PIL) No. 1888/03 is concerned, though phrased in a different manner, the prayer therein is also of the same nature, to direct TISCO to complete the dumping and the creation of bund on the banks of the river Swarnrekha and Kharkai. As we have noticed, whether TISCO, should be allowed to complete the work at all, it still in dispute in the context of the Environment (Protection) Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. In this situation, we do not think it necessary to go into the question, whether a writ could be issued to TISCO, as sought for in this writ petition. We are also not inclined to go into the question, whether it is a public Interest Litigation or not. Since the prayer cannot be granted at this stage/those aspects need not be dealt with now. They can be considered if and when the occasion for it arises in future.

8. In view of what is stated above, we decline to interfere. These writ petitions are dismissed.