Unlike natural calamities that are beyond human control, avoidable disasters resulting from human error or negligence prove more tragic and completely imbalance the inter-generational equity and cause retrievable damage to the health and environment for generations to come. Such tragedy may occur from pure negligence, contributory negligence or even failure to take necessary precautions in carrying on certain industrial activities. More often than not, the affected parties have to face avoidable damage and adversity that results from such disasters. The magnitude and extent of adverse impact on the financial soundness, social health and upbringing of younger generation, may have been beyond human expectations. In such situations and where the laws are silent or are inadequate, the courts have unexceptionally stepped in to bridge the gaps, to provide for appropriate directions and guidelines to ensure that fundamentals of Article 21 of the Constitution of India are not violated. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy is a glaring example of such imbalances and adverse impacts, where by court’s intervention, poor and destitute have been provided relief and rehabilitation. The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster occurred on the intervening night of the 2nd December, 1984. Data reflecting the exact number of affected persons was not available initially. Earlier, it was felt that only a small number of persons were adversely affected in terms of health or otherwise by the leakage of toxic gases from the Union Carbide Unit at Bhopal. However, the Scientific Commission for Continuing Studies on effects of Bhopal Gas Leakage on Life Systems released a Report titled “The Bhopal Gas Disaster: Effects on Life Systems’ in July, 1987 which suggested otherwise. This Report stated that for the estimated population of 2 lakh exposed to the toxic gases in the severely and moderately affected areas of Bhopal and the variety of long-term problems anticipated in the crisis period, the number of exposees covered so far by the Indian Council for Medical Research through the medical surveys constitute less than 20 per cent of the population. With the passage of time, this figure of the affected population has swollen to nearly 5 lakh. By the same Scientific Commission, it was also found that in general, the output of the medical project so far had not equaled the magnitude of the tasks assigned to them, presumably due to lack of resources trained staff as well as physical inputs. This has to be remedied in the shortest time so that project is completed fully. It is urged by him that the High Court has fallen into error by opining that there was no justification to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereas the facts stated warranted deletion of such an observation by the DRAT as a tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant such liberty and, especially, when a settlement between the borrower and auction purchaser had been arrived at. Learned counsel would submit that the DRAT had really not addressed to any issue and, after recording a settlement in a most brief manner, recorded the observations which really deserved to be quashed by the High Court. It is further canvassed by the Counsel that the High court should have taken note of the fact that the order passed by the DRAT had already been complied with and it was absolutely unnecessary to drag the bank to a further litigation which is contrary to the spirit of the Act and the purpose of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It is also contended that the DRAT failed to take note of the prayer made by the appellant therein and for no important reason the matter was kept pending for more than four and half years. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1, contended that he had paid the dues of the bank within the time fixed by the DRAT and thereafter he had also transferred the property in favour of a third party due to financial difficulties. In essence, submission of learned counsel is that putting the clock back is likely to cause serious loss to him. The learned counsel appearing for the auction purchaser, submitted that on the basis of the liberty he had already filed a suit in the Delhi High Court and is entitled to pursue the remedy because the action was taken in hot haste by the bank in putting the property into auction without indicating that litigation was going on between the borrower and the bank. It is urged by him, had the said fact was made known the third respondent would not have participated in the auction. It is argued by him that his claim for damages cannot be nullified by the decision of the High Court. (800)
