In re : News item published in The Times of India dated 12th April, 2022, titled �Six killed in chemical factory blast in Gujarat� Vs

This Application has been filed by M/s. Om Organics, Dahej, District Bharuch, Gujarat, the project proponent (PP) for review of order of this Tribunal dated 29.08.2022 in O.A No. 272/2022, In re : News item published in The Times of India dated 12th April, 2022, titled “Six killed in chemical factory blast in Gujarat”.

By the said order, the Tribunal dealt with the issue arising out of media report that six persons died in an explosion at the chemical factory of the PP. Fire broke out at 1.00 AM on 12.4.2022 followed by the explosion. Blast was heard upto 1 Km. away.

The Tribunal constituted a joint Committee to verify facts resulting in the incident, whether compensation had been paid to the victims and steps which need to be taken to prevent such incidents in future. The Authorities were directed to provide a copy of the report to the project proponent (PP) and put it to notice of the proceedings for its response, if any.

The Committee verified the facts and gave its report dated 22.07.2022. A copy of the report was furnished to the PP which mentioned the order of the Tribunal and also the proceedings before the Tribunal. The PP however, chose not to enter appearance or to contest the report.

Accordingly, the Tribunal passed an order accepting the recommendations of the Committee as follows:-

“4. We have considered the matter with the assistance of learned Counsel for the State PCB. None has chosen to appear for the PP with whose representatives the Committee interacted and who was put to notice of the proceedings in terms of order of this Tribunal referred to earlier.

The fact-finding report submitted by a responsible Committee of statutory authorities shows that blast occurred due to increase in temperature, due to fire triggered from spark. There was failure of the PP in following the safety norms. The heirs of the deceased are entitled to compensation as recommended by the Committee based on loss of income and the period of loss, having regard to age of the deceased. Further, the PP was liable to pay compensation for the damage to the environment. The PP has violated environmental norms particularly those laid down under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 under the EP Act. Even otherwise, liability of the PP is absolute as held inter alia in MC Mehta, (1987) 1 SCC 395. The report also mentions steps taken in pursuance of earlier orders of the Tribunal requiring the Chief Secretary, Gujarat to coordinate compliance of safety norms to prevent frequent fatal incidents during operation of such units.

In view of above, in absence of any reason not to do so, we accept the report and direct further remedial action in term of compliances, adoption of safeguards to prevent recurence of such incidents in future, recovery of compensation for damage to the environment and loss of lives and disbursement of compensation to heirs of the deceased. Till recovery of compensation, the unit may not be allowed to restart. Compliance may be ensured by the Chief Secretary, Gujarat through concerned officers. The Chief Secretary, Gujarat may hold a follow up meeting on or before 31.10.2022 to satisfy himself that the recommendations have been duly complied with.”

In the Review Application now filed, grievance of the PP is that it received copy of the report but not the notice. Averment in the application is as follows:-

“6. Even though the applicant was provided copy of the report, none had intimated applicant about proceedings at Hon Tribunal. Therefore the applicant could not attend the proceedings and the order dated 29.08.2022 are passed without considering the representation of the applicant.”

It is thus acknowledged that copy of the report was provided to the review applicant. Once it is so, there is no merit in the plea that the review applicant did not know about the proceedings. Moreover, the applicant has not been able to show any error in the report nor any reason for reduction of compensation. There is also no justification for the PP not entering appearance at the relevant time.

We, thus, do not find any merit in the review application which is dismissed.