Oleum Gas Leak Case

 Oleum Gas Leak Case

The Case of the Oleum Gas Leak: The Fertilizer Factory was located in Kirti Nagar. Their products included hard technical oil and glycerin soaps, which they manufactured in Delhi, which is a densely-populated area.

M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition against the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphur Acid plant, requesting that it be closed and relocated because it was posing a serious threat to the public health. In contrast, the Supreme Court did not take the matter seriously and permitted the parties to continue their work while the case remained on hold. The court did not reach a final decision in this case.

On the 4th of December, 1985. The company experienced an oil gas leak from one of its units, causing significant damage to the surrounding community and resulting in a major disaster. An attorney who practised in the Tis Hazari Courts, according to the solicitor, died as a result of Oleum gas inhalation. The spillage occurred as a result of the failure of the design upon which it was constructed, and it caused fear among the residents who lived nearby. Within two days, another spillage occurred, though this time a minor one, due to the escape of oleum gas from one of the line's joints. Following this, the Delhi Legislative Guide and Counsel Load up and the Delhi Bar Association recorded cases for restitution on behalf of individuals who had endured harm as a result of the escape of oleum gas from a line's joints.

As a result of these two interruptions, the Delhi organisations immediately responded by issuing an order on December 6, 1985, by the Delhi Officer, in accordance with Section 133 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordering Shriram to cease control of the assembly and preparation of hazardous and lethal synthetic substances and gases, such as chlorine, Oleum, Super chlorine, phosphate, and so forth, at their office in Delhi and to eliminate such synthetic compounds from the country.

A larger seat should be assigned to the case, the High Court determined, because the inquiries raised concern significant legal issues relating to the interpretation of Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution. In order to determine whether a writ of habeas corpus related to pay could be granted. The court had to figure out what Article 32 was all about. According to Article 21 of the Privately Owned Businesses Act, which establishes the option to ensure life and opportunity for all, Additionally, it was to be deciphered as being essential in the public's best interests as well.