Epistolary Jurisdiction 6o2l4q

Epistolary Jurisdiction In epistolary jurisdiction the court has the power to treat letter written to individual judges and court as writ petition. These letters usually contain a bare outline of the grievance, the unsuccessful steps taken by the writer to secure relief from the official agencies, and a request to the court to set matters right. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. UOI and PUDR v. UOI, epistolary jurisdiction was recognized. But in RLEK v. State of U.P. it concretely acknowledged the epistolary jurisdiction and allowed a letter from Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, to be treated as a writ petition under Art.32 of the Constitution of India.

Oleum Gas Leak Case: (M.C.Mehta v. UOI) Question: Whether any private Corporation established under functional operation of Govt. should be treated as a state under Art. 12? The court regarding this question held that private body cannot be treated as a state under Art. 12 but the court said that the power of the Supreme Court to grant remedial relief for a proved infringement of a fundamental right includes the power to award compensation. Thus, the court not only widened the scope of Article 21 by including in it protection of environment but also included a liability in tort for those who harmed others by pollution.

In this case Shriram food and fertilizers Co. was a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Co. was emerged in manufacture of Caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, vanaspati, Sodiun sulphate and sulphur. Plant in question manufactured chlorine. On 4th December 1985, a major leakage of oleum gas took place from one of the units. Leakage affected a large no. of people. One practicing advocate of Tis Hazari court died. Leakage occurred due to bursting of tank containing gas due to collapse of structure on which tank was mounted. District magistrate on 6th December ordered for closure off the unit under S. 133 of CrPC. After that a writ petition was filed under Art. 32 on 7th September. Sc accepted the claim of the

petitioner and held that an expert committee to should be appointed. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was appointed as the head of the committee. Petitioner was also asked to appoint another committee to look in to the matter and the same was appointed as G.D.Agrawal Committee. Agrawal committee brought to notice that there were various inadequacies and the plant should be shifted to another location. Another committee was appointed under the head of Nilay Chaudhri and two other to inspect and submit the report on following 3 points: 1) Whether the plant should be allowed to work at the same location under the present condition? 2) If the plant should not be allowed in the present condition then what measures should be taken so that the leakage does not happen in future? 3) How many safety desires were present and how many were to be installed? After verification, Nilay Chaudhri Committee agreed with other committees and gave 14 point recommendation to prevent leakage in future. Meanwhile proceedings were going on, inspector of factories using power under Factories Act prohibited manufacture of caustic soda, chlorine and sulphuric acid till proper safety measures were taken. Court considered report of all committees and observed that all devices were installed 35 years ago were not sufficient and new devices should be installed not only in the plant in question but also in all other plants. Court further observed that since chlorine gas is very dangerous its escape from storage tank or cylinders will affect the well-being of the people. Therefore, precautionary measures should be taken and all industries were ordered by the SC to take consent letter from the central state control board and State pollution control board depending upon area where the plant is situated. In this case P.N.Bhagwati J recognized the principle of absolute liability and denied to accept the strict liability principle laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher since, the circumstances in India are different from thst in foreign land.

Principle of absolute liability: When an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to any one on of an accident in the operation of such hazardous and inherently dangerous activity. The enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any exceptions. The court said absolute liability is an indigenous principle.