Supreme Court pauses coercive action against Tata Chemicals in marine sanctuary case | India News

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday directed that no coercive action be taken against Tata Chemicals while it considers the company’s challenge to a Gujarat high court ruling concerning alleged environmental damage to a marine sanctuary in the Gulf of Kutch.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice on Tata Chemicals’ plea against the high court’s May 25 judgment. The bench asked the Gujarat government to respond by November 2.“Meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners,” the Supreme Court said according to news agency PTI.Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Tata Chemicals, told the court that the case concerns allegations of environmental degradation and encroachment.The dispute relates to the company’s Mithapur facility, where open channels have historically been used to discharge wastewater into the sea. Tata Chemicals had challenged a 2006 order passed by the district collector, who rejected the company’s claim over the land on which these channels were located.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
The Gujarat high court dismissed that challenge on May 25. It also rejected Tata Chemicals’ argument that it had pre-existing rights over the legacy open wastewater channels.The high court found that government land forming part of the marine sanctuary had been encroached upon. It further directed the Gujarat Pollution Control Board to appoint experts to assess the environmental damage caused to the area.The experts have also been asked to recommend suitable measures to restore or remedy the damage and determine the compensation that may be payable. The exercise was directed to be completed within three months.The Supreme Court’s order means that no coercive steps will be taken against Tata Chemicals for the time being as the court examines the company’s challenge to the Gujarat high court judgment.
Source link



