MONTREAL, Feb. 1 /CNW Telbec/ - The consortium of international
investors that wants to buy Jeffrey mine in Asbestos, Quebec and
increase chrysotile exports to developing countries salutes the
landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India that refused to ban
asbestos and directed the Union and State Governments of India to put
in place a body to regulate its use and manufacturing.
The Court also chastised the petitioner for abusing the law saying that
the Writ Petition is not in public interest but is rather a private
interest litigation to give rise to business opportunities for
competitive products. (par 24)
Regulate rather than ban
The Supreme Court was petitioned by an NGO who asked it to ban all uses
of asbestos in any manner whatsoever. The Court refused to do so, on
the grounds of "lack of specific data as well as vague averments in the
Writ petition" (par. 12).
"What is required is better supervision and regulatory control rather
than banning of the activity," the Court writes. (par.12)
"This judgment by the highest tribunal in India confirms that our
project of exporting Quebec's expertise in the safe handling of
chrysotile asbestos along with our product is the right one," says
Baljit Chadha, head of the consortium of investors.
Links between the anti-chrysotile lobby and rival business interests
The judgment describes how rival business interests disguised themselves
as a public interest NGO: "the present petition lacks bona fide, is an
abuse of the process of the Court and has been filed as a proxy
litigation for the purpose of achieving private interest." (par.27)
Consequently, the Court has issued notice to the petitioner "to show
cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts act, 1971 be not
initiated against them and/or in addition, why exemplary cost be not
imposed upon them."(par. 29)
"We are used to seeing the anti-chrysotile activists trying to moralize
or shame people on the basis of incomplete science and half-truths.
And we have known for a long time of the links between them and some of
the manufacturers of competing products. The Supreme Court of India
has now openly stated this," concludes Mr. Chadha.
The judgment can be found on the website of the Supreme Court of India: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp .. It is dated January 21, 2011 and the name of the petitioner is:
SOURCE JEFFREY MINE
For further information: