The Supreme Court ruled on May 6, 2005, that the High Court's April 7, 2005, decision should not be stayed as requested by the Panchayat. In other words, the High Court ruling in favor of the Company stands as is and remains valid and enforceable and the Kerala plant license to operated must be renewed by the local Panchayat.
"Following the Supreme Court's decision on May 6, 2005, the Company pursued its application with the local Panchayat for renewal of the Kerala plant's license to operate. The Panchayat rejected our application twice, both times on the basis that the Company allegedly does not have other necessary and required licenses or permissions from the State of Kerala. The Company believes and responded that we do have all required licenses and permissions from the State. In response to the Panchayat's refusal to grant renewal of the license to operate, the Company returned to the High Court seeking an order enforcing its April 7, 2005, ruling and requiring the Panchayat to comply and grant the license to operate. The matter was heard by the High Court on May 23, 2005. On June 2, 2005, the High Court directed that the President of the Panchayat renew the Kerala plant's license."
On May 5, 2005, the Kolkatta High Court for the State of West Bengal, India dismissed public interest litigation ("PIL") brought by one "Subhas Dutta" as petitioner against the Company. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief prohibiting the alleged "distribution of unwholesome soft drinks" by the Company due to alleged contamination with pesticide residues. The case also involved allegations that the Company operations in India are negatively impacting local aquifers (i.e., groundwater). In denying the plaintiff's claims, the Court reached the following conclusions and rendered the following rulings.
As to the claim that Company soft drinks are "unwholesome" and contain pesticide residues, the High Court found that "[a] lot of technical data has been filed . . . and we find that [Coca-Cola] has taken the matter very seriously so as to explain in details that at least their drink, i.e., Coca-Cola, would not be dubbed as a drink dangerous to the persons who drink it and that there is no public health element attached to that drink."
Regarding the allegations of depletion of groundwater, the High Court found the following. "The parties[, i.e., the Company] and more particularly the State Government appear to be extremely serious in the matter of groundwater preservation. . . . Therefore, we do not propose to go ahead with other issues like toxicity or depletion of groundwater or contamination of groundwater, etc. We are convinced that a proper authority is being created for the management of the groundwater."
The Court also opined that it believes rainwater harvesting is appropriate to help conserve local aquifers. The Court encouraged the West Bengal State Government to take action to require rainwater harvesting by commercial and other concerns. The Court further found that as to the Company: "We are convinced by the affidavit which has been filed before us today that the major users like Coca-Cola have already taken . . . steps [to implement rainwater harvesting at their respective facilities]. Of course, those steps would be subject to the supervision of the State Government through its officials."
Finally, the High Court concluded that "[t]he [plaintiffs'] petition is thus disposed of in the light of the observations made above." In other words, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint and did not impose obligations or sanctions on Coca-Cola India.
