Prosecution Of Industries Polluting Rivers And Streams
1. Case: Hetauda Cement Factory – Mahadev River Pollution (2019)
Facts:
Hetauda Cement Factory was found discharging untreated chemical waste into the Mahadev River, leading to the death of fish and contamination of water used by nearby communities.
Legal Issues:
Violation of the Water Resources Act, 1992 and Environment Protection Act, 1997, which prohibit dumping pollutants into rivers.
Criminal liability for environmental damage under Penal Code Section 145 (causing damage to public resources).
Outcome:
The factory was ordered to stop operations until proper waste treatment systems were installed.
The management faced fines and imprisonment for negligence causing environmental harm.
Compulsory compensation was ordered for affected local residents.
Significance:
Set precedent that industrial discharge without treatment constitutes criminal liability.
Reinforced the principle of “polluter pays” in Nepalese law.
2. Case: Butwal Paper Mill – Karnali Tributary Contamination (2017)
Facts:
The paper mill released large volumes of untreated effluent containing chemicals into a tributary of the Karnali River. Villagers reported skin rashes, fish kills, and foul odors.
Legal Issues:
Violation of the Environment Protection Act, 1997 and rules on effluent discharge.
Penal Code Section 218: environmental negligence causing public harm.
Outcome:
Authorities conducted inspections and shut down the factory temporarily.
The owners were fined NPR 500,000 and ordered to install proper effluent treatment plants.
The case resulted in prosecution of senior management for criminal negligence.
Significance:
Highlighted accountability for river pollution.
Reinforced monitoring obligations of environmental authorities.
3. Case: Pokhara Textile Industries – Seti River Pollution (2018)
Facts:
A textile factory discharged dyes and chemicals directly into the Seti River, affecting aquatic life and farmers downstream.
Legal Issues:
Non-compliance with Industrial Enterprise Act and Environment Protection Regulations.
Violation of public health and aquatic protection norms.
Outcome:
Factory was temporarily closed.
Three top officials faced criminal charges under Penal Code Sections 218 and 145.
Court ordered clean-up of the river at the company’s expense.
Significance:
Case emphasized industries’ responsibility for waste management.
Strengthened legal enforcement for water pollution.
4. Case: Bhaktapur Brick Kilns – Dhobikhola Contamination (2020)
Facts:
Several brick kilns near Bhaktapur discharged ash and solid waste into Dhobikhola, causing flooding and water contamination.
Legal Issues:
Violation of Water Resources Act and Local Government Act regarding public water use.
Criminal liability for disrupting public resources.
Outcome:
Kiln owners were prosecuted and fined.
Mandated to build containment structures and treatment systems.
Courts imposed 1–2 years imprisonment for repeated violations.
Significance:
Demonstrated that even small-scale industries are accountable for river pollution.
Encouraged local government monitoring of industrial activities.
5. Case: Bharatpur Distillery – Narayani River Effluent Case (2016)
Facts:
A distillery discharged untreated organic waste into the Narayani River, causing oxygen depletion and fish deaths.
Legal Issues:
Criminal negligence under Penal Code Section 218.
Environmental violation under Environment Protection Act, 1997.
Outcome:
Court ordered immediate clean-up of the river.
Distillery fined NPR 1,000,000 and required to establish wastewater treatment.
Owners faced 2-year imprisonment for environmental crime.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that industrial pollution is punishable under criminal law.
Showed the judiciary’s role in enforcing environmental compliance.
6. Case: Chitwan Sugar Factory – Rapti River Contamination (2021)
Facts:
Waste from sugar processing, including molasses and chemicals, was released into the Rapti River, affecting local farmers and villagers’ drinking water.
Legal Issues:
Violation of Water Resources Act, 1992 and Environment Protection Act, 1997.
Penal Code Sections 145 and 218 for causing public harm.
Outcome:
Factory temporarily closed by government authorities.
Owners and managers prosecuted for environmental crimes.
Ordered to pay compensation and construct proper effluent treatment plants.
Significance:
Highlighted public-private accountability in river protection.
Emphasized penalties as deterrents against industrial pollution.
Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Industries have strict liability for preventing pollution of rivers and streams.
Environmental Acts + Penal Code jointly govern criminal prosecution.
Punishments include imprisonment, fines, and mandatory remediation.
Local authorities and judiciary play a critical role in monitoring compliance.
Polluter Pays Principle: industries must restore environmental damage they cause.
Repeated violations attract harsher criminal penalties, including prison terms.
RELATED Blog
comments