Pursuant to a PIL, the Gujarat High Court appointed expert bodies to assess the extent of pollution and suitable rectification measures, etc. by industries. Some industries were allowed to operate with a direction to pay one per cent of maximum annual turnover of any preceding three years towards compensation and socio-economic uplift of the citizens. Deepak Nitrite Ltd appealed against this order contending that the principle of ‘polluter to pay’ cannot be applied when there is no finding that the industry in question is a polluter. The Supreme Court held that even if the units concerned have not conformed to the norms of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, the fact by itself does not mean that the lapse caused damage to the environment. The apex court directed the high court to re-examine if there has been degradation of environment, and appropriate norms for awarding compensation to the victims if any (Deepak Nitrite Ltd vs State of Gujarat).

A landlord filed a case for eviction of tenants inter alia on the ground that the premises were in an unhygienic area, being located near an open drain. The landlord wanted to reconstruct the 100-year-old structure. The tenants stated that reconstruction was unnecessary and that eviction would inconvenience them. They also said that the landlord did nor require the premises as he had no children. The trial court held that the landlord cannot contend that the premises is uninhabitable as he had occupied the same following eviction of former tenants. On revision, the high court held in favour of the landlord. On appeal by the tenants, the Supreme Court held that it is not for tenants to suggest whether the premises require demolition or reconstruction. The tenants were directed to vacate the premises within three months (P.S. Pareed Kaka vs Shafi Ahmed Saheb).

The High Court of Karnataka has held that a telephone subscriber’s son is not liable to clear unpaid bills of his father. Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, permits recovery only from the subscriber who as per the rules is a “person to whom telephone services has been provided by means of installation under the rules or under the agreement”. A person does not become a subscriber merely because he resides with his family or relatives and uses the phone. The notices issued by the department upon the son were quashed (Ajit Singh vs General Manager, Mysore Telecom District).

SOLON