Vizag Gas Leak: SC Adjourns Appeal Against NGT Order; Proceedings Before NGT Deferred Till Further Orders, directed LG Polymers India Pvt. First, the legislator has not used the term 'strict liability'. This step of NGT is highly debatable and shall be taken ahead on the next date of hearing. While the exact details of the Vizag Gas Leak are not yet entirely clear, it is not hard to imagine that LG Polymers could try to argue that the leak was out of their control because of difficulties arising out of the coronavirus lockdown. While the leakage of styrene gas from the LG Polymers plant near Vizag has thus far proved less dangerous than the leak at the Union Carbide factory, 11 people have still lost their lives, another 25 are in critical condition, more than 200 people have been hospitalised, and 1,000 have fallen ill. According to Judge Weeramantry, EIA is a dynamic principle and with the magnitude of projects in operation, prudence would point to the need for continuous monitoring. The liability under this rule is strict and not having willful knowledge or no default or neglect is by no means a defence. The NGT has constituted a five-member Committee to inspect the site and to submit a report within ten days. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086. , 1986 came into force did this incident become a guiding force for the implementation of such an effective law. Only a few months before the. To create a safety committee for employees. The industry and the authorities concerned owe an explanation and this is very important before a more disturbing picture emerges with the opening of another similar red category (high polluting) industry as the lockdown restrictions are eased in India. Subscribe To Our Daily Newsletter And Get News Delivered Straight To Your Inbox. [i] Rule 2(e) read with Entry 583 of Schedule I to the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989. While prior assessment of social and environmental impacts of industrial activities is a useful tool, the Vizag incident exposes the need for continuous assessment or monitoring. While the number of people affected in the Vizag Gas Leak is far smaller than those affected in Bhopal in 1984, and the styrene gas is not expected to cause the kind of long-term damage caused by the gas in that case, the principle of absolute liability should mean that a substantial amount of compensation will need to be paid to the victims, and there will be special/exemplary damages over and above the costs incurred by them. Rohatgi contended that it had not been possible to do so and post 1st June that the report was accepted. It was held that "an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken" (emphasis added). The gas leak case of Shriram was also noteworthy because it was the first time that a company had been held exclusively responsible for an incident and had to pay compensation irrespective of its claims in defence. Vizag ACP Confirms Gas Leak as 11 Die in Tragedy, 250 Hospitalised. The NGT has, in its prima facie opinion, made it clear that the 'principle of no-fault' as mentioned in Section 17 refers to the principle of strict liability. rule was applied in this case. The second group was those industries that would eventually be State-owned in which the State would then typically take the initiative of setting up new enterprises but it will also be required that the private companies would complement the State’s efforts by supporting and establishing enterprises by themselves or involving the state for its help.