The Supreme Court on Monday stayed its own order executing bailable warrants against the Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) but directed his personal presence before the Bench that had issued the warrants. The warrants were issued in a PIl proceeding on May 11 after the Board failed to turn up with a report on the harmful effects of silicosis.
Appearing before the Vacation Bench of Justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy, CPCB Chairman Arun Kumar Mehta moved an application to stay the warrants as there was no attempt on his part to evade appearance. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinky Anand submitted on his behalf that on the day the order was passed the CPCB lawyer was not present in Court.
The Bench confirmed this fact with the other side appearing in the case and proceeded to stay the warrants. However, it asked the ASG to ensure that the officer remained present in court when the matter is to be taken up next on June 30.
The issue is related to several deaths reported of labourers in a quartz industry in Godhra, Gujarat prior to 2006. The PIl filed by People’s Rights and Social Research Centre stated that the problem had to do with silicosis contracted by labourers working in stone crushing units and related industries. In all, 238 people died due to silicosis working at Godhra’s quartz industry and another 304 developed complications following which they returned to their native State Madhya Pradesh.
After learning about the significant number of deaths, the apex court had sought a report from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the aspect of compensation to be awarded to the families of deceased and those who are still bearing the brunt of silicosis.
The Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohington Fali Nariman ordered CPCB to prepare a report on how silicosis and pneumoconiosis diseases are caused due to air pollution from stone crushing units, quarries, quartz and glass industries, situated across the country.
But on May 11 when the matter was heard, neither CPCB officials were preset nor its counsel represented the case for the Board following which bailable warrants came to be issued.
