What was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India in regard to liability?

 In  M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India , the Supreme Court observed that “ Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm  results to anyone on account of an accident in to operations of such hazardous and inherently dangerous activity resulting. For example, in escape of toxic gas, the enterprises is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not  subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher. The bases of the new rule as indicated by the Supreme Court are two: (1) If an enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident (including indemnification of all those who suffer harm in the accident) arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads; and (2) The enterprise alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide warning against potential hazards.