A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.

By – Kavya Singh

In the Supreme Court of India

NAME OF THE CASEA.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.
CITATION1994 (3) SCC 1
DATE OF CASE27 January 1999  
APPELLANT A.P. Pollution Control Board
RESPONDENTProf. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.  
BENCH/JUDGEJustice S.B. Majmudar, Justice M. Jagannath
STATUTES / CONSTITUTION INVOLVED Article 136 of Constitution of India, Section 28 of Water Act 1974, Section 3(3) of Environment (Protection) Act 1986, Article 21 of Constitution of India, Section 25(1) of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974  

ABSTRACT

As indicated by the Pollution Control Board, and Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Government of India said that ‘vegetable oils including addressed removed oils’ were recorded in red hazardous classification. On 31.3.1994, the Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh disallowed different sorts of advancement inside 10 km span of two lakes, Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar, to screen the nature of water in these supplies which provided water to the two urban communities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. In January, the organisation was joined as a restricted organisation with the object of setting up an industry for the creation of B.S.S. Castor oil subordinates and bought 12 sections of land in Peddashpur town. The use of the business was dismissed by the A.P. Contamination Control Board since the proposed site fell within the 10 km radius and such an area was not permitted. The unit was a contaminating industry and fell under the red classification of dirtying industry. The Board thought that it would not be good to find such an industry in the catchment space of Himayatsagar. The court analysed whether the proposed task would indeed be contaminating, and subsequently called attention to the hardships looked by ecological courts in managing the innovative or logical issues. The Courts did not have the ability in all specialised and logical issues of outrageous intricacy. It underlined that toxic harmful pollution was a significant danger to fundamental biological cycles. This association brought up the significance of the preparatory guideline in environmental law. It was very important to put the burden of verification on individuals or substances proposing the movement that was possibly providing harm to the climate. This individual can release this burden by showing truthful environmental or clinical concern. The outcome would be that if deficient proof was introduced by it to alleviate concern about the degree of vulnerability, then, at that point the assumption ought to work for ecological assurance. Any opinion delivered by expert bodies would be dependent upon the endorsement of the Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court referred the accompanying inquiries to the Appellate Authority under the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997, the first one is the respondent business a dangerous one and what is its contamination probability, considering, the idea of the item, the effluents and its area and the second one is whether the activity of the business is probably going to influence the delicate catchment region bringing about contamination of the Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes providing drinking water to the twin urban communities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The court, accordingly, referred the above issues to the above-said Appellate Authority for its assessment and mentioned the Authority to offer its input, beyond what many would consider possible, within a time of 90 days from the date of receipt of this request.

INTRODUCTION

In this case, the respondent business decided to set up a vegetable oil production line in the town of Peddashpur in the domain of Andhra Pradesh for which the seventh respondent purchased the land. The land was inside a range of 10 Kms from two significant supplies that gave drinking water to individuals. The Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of India, advised a rundown of dangerous businesses, which incorporated the business delivering vegetable oil, in the activity of its force vested in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and other Acts. The Central Government warning expressed that an industry that wished to set up an industrial facility needed to look for assent from the individual Pollution Control Board for which a ‘No Objection Certificate’  was to be given guaranteeing that the business doesn’t make any mischief or contamination the climate. According to the bearings of the Union Government, the territory of Andhra Pradesh gave notice and denied enterprises from setting up industrial facilities inside 10 Kms from the supplies. The business applied for a NOC in November 1995 to the appealing party Board in the territory of Andhra Pradesh. The territory of Andhra Pradesh’s kept in touch with the Government of India looking for unwinding to the 10 Km rule. The Government of India reacted by expressing that the business ought to get a NOC from the Environment Authority of the State Government. The Pollution Control Board in the territory of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the application maintaining the 10 K.M. Radius and expressed that the business went under the ‘Red List. Even though the Board dismissed the application, the respondents got consent from the Gram Panchayat for building up the production line. The investigative Board saw that the Nickel Catalysts and other toxins were probably going to get released straightforwardly or by implication into the lake and subsequently, dismissed the application. The business moved toward the State Government indeed, looking for an exclusion to the 10 K.M. rule, on the ground that it had put colossal capital in building up the business. The State Government allowed an exception and guided the business to have appropriate waste treatment systems set up. This exclusion was tested by the Society of Preservation of Environment and Quality Life, which got a stay request from the Court and the NOC conceded to the business was suppressed.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

A Special Leave Petition (SPL) was recorded by the A. P. Pollution Control Board under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against prof. M.V. Nayuda (respondent organisation). The respondent business pursued to supply produce B.S.S. Castor Oil subsidiaries like Hydrogenated Castor Oil, 12-Hydroxy Stearic Acid, Dehydrated Castor Oil, methylated 12-HSA, Fatty Acids with by items like Glycerine, Spent Bleaching Earth, Carbon and Spent Nickel Catalyst. Before setting up an industry, it had been exposed to various clearance. In 1995, the respondent business applied to the Ministry of Industry, Government of India for the letter of Intent under the Industries  Act, 1951. The Government of Andhra Pradesh kept in touch with the Ministry of Industry,  as under: “The State Government suggests the use of the unit for grant of letter of goal for the production of B.S.S. Castor Oil unwinding the locational limitation subject to No Objection Certificate (NOC) from A.P. Contamination Control Board, past of making execution strides. In 1996, the Government of India gave the letter of expectation for assembling of B.S.S. Grade Castor Oil (15,000 tons each year) and Glycerine (600 tons each year) are subject to bound conditions which are a Confirmation Certificate from the State Director of Industries and a Certificate from the elaborate State Pollution Control Board. As per the above conditions put somewhere around the GOI, the respondent business applied to the A.P. contamination Control Board for NOC. The utilisation of the business was dismissed by the Board on the ensuing grounds of the unit could be a contaminating industry and falls under the ‘RED’ class of the characterisation received by the Ministry of Environment and Forest and the projected business was put inside 10k.m. area of the two lakes, Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar that was denied not exclusively by the Ministry of Environment and Forest anyway moreover by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

An apple was recorded by the respondent business under Section 28 of the Water Act, 1974. An affidavit was documented before the redrafting authority expressing that it had embraced the most current eco-friendly innovation which is utilising every protection concerning contamination. On the above conflicts, the investigative power announced that said industry is not a dirtying industry. The respondent industry, in its turn, recorded a Writ Petition for directing the A.P. Contamination Control Board to oversee its assent as an outcome to the request for the investigative power. Andhra Pradesh commented on the request for the investigative authority under Section 28 of Water Act, 1974 and held that just because industry created unsafe substances, the assent could not be denied. The High Court coordinated A.P. Contamination Control Board to allow to agree exposed to such conditions as may be forced by the Board. It is against this request, the Pollution Control Board documented this extraordinary leave appeal.

FACTS OF THE CASE

• In this case a new factory for the creation of vegetable oils should be built by respondents in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent industry bought a land parcel in Indore town named Peddashpur. Inside the scope of the village the supplies that give drinking water to the 5 million individuals around the space.

• In the year 1988 the Ministry of Forest and Environment set up the red list of unsafe enterprises. In that red list, the name of respondents industry was likewise recorded. 

• This warning was given by the Central Government dependent on its force under the Eater counteraction and control of Pollution Act of 1974 just as the Air anticipation and control of contamination Act of 1981. 

• In 1994 under the Directive Principles of Central Government, the State Government forces a warning where it was referenced that the foundation of any industry inside 10 kilometres of repositories is to be restricted by law. 

• In 1995 could not apply for getting the NOC from the territory of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board for the foundation of his industry into that space. It was established by the climate authority of the state. 

• Government reaffirmed the standard in 1996. Thus, the State of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board dismissed the application because of that standard.

• The respondent was informed by the Commission of Industries that he should select an elective region however he did not pay attention to the commission of ventures different common works and introduced apparatus. 

• Without a doubt, the State of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board the respondent applied for a NOC.

• Then, at that point likewise the Board dismissed the application. 

• Then, at that point reacted fought that he contribute a lot of cash to the foundation of the business and its activities 

• Thereafter, State Government in the wake of assessing demand made by the respondent.

• Then, at that point the authorisation and the solution alongside the rules to the respondent were given to be followed water contamination. 

• Thereafter respondent recorded an apple before the investigative Authority under Section 28 of the Water Act. 

• Investigative position switch the orders made by the province of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board by giving thinking that the respondent had utilised the most recent method for to prevent ecological contamination.

• At last, the giving of NOC is passable to the respondent.

ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

• What is the validity of the orders passed by the A.P. Contamination Control Board? 

• The rightness of the sets of the Appellate Authority under area 28 of the Water Act, 1974? 

• What is the legitimacy of exception allowed for the activity of the 10 k.m. rule? 

• In what ways that the mechanical parts of the natural law cases should be mediated? 

• Whether the industry of respondent is a hazardous one?

• What is industries contamination possibility, considering the idea of the item, the effluents and its area? 

• Regardless of whether the activity of the business is probably going to influence the sensitive region bringing about contamination of the Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar Lakes providing drinking water to the twin urban areas of Hyderabad and Secunderabad?

ARGUMENT FROM APPELLANT SIDE

• The appealing party of this case was the A. P. Pollution control board which fought that the respondent business could not begin its common works and development without getting approval from A.P. Pollution Control Boards.

• According to the appellant the unit is a polluting industry that will harm the environment and fall under the red category of polluting industries.

• The appellant states that the proposed site felt within a 10 km radius and that area was not permitted for construction of the industry.

• The appellant even presented the items made by respondent industry would lead to the  following pollutants, first is Nickel (strong waste) which is a substantial metal and an unsafe waste under the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, second is a capability of release or run-off from the plant consolidated joining oil and other side effects and the third is Emission of sulphur dioxide and oxide of nitrogen.”

ARGUMENT FROM RESPONDENT SIDE

• The respondent argued after the dismissal of the letter of the respondent industry for getting the NOC, they appealed under Section 28 of the Water Act before the investigative authority.

• Along with this the respondent presented a sworn statement of Shri Santapa who was a policeman of the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board which was in the blessing of the respondent industry. In that testimony, it was expressed that industry had followed just as received eco agreeable innovation by utilising all the shielding measures for the insurance of climate.

• Respondent industry Director even submitted an affidavit statement clarifying the insights about the innovation utilised in the erection of the plant.

• Another report was additionally presented by the respondent business pronouncing utilised by them is acquired from the Indian Institute of Chemical innovation of Hyderabad which is an exceptionally prestigious and that industry had given an endorsement announcing that this industry would not release any acidic influents which are destructive for the climate. Based on the above affirmation and reports it was fought that industry is not a dirtying industry.

RELATED PROVISION

Article 136 of the Constitution of India

Article 136. Special leave to advance by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its prudence, award extraordinary pass on to request from any judgment, order, assurance, sentence or request in any reason or matter passed or made by any court or council in the domain of India

(2) Nothing in a statement (1) will apply to any judgment, assurance, sentence or request passed or made by any court or council established by or under any law identifying with the Armed Forces

Section 28 of Water Act 1974

Appeal –

(1)Any individual distressed by a request made by the State Board under section 25, section 26 or section 27 may, inside thirty days from the date on which the request is conveyed to him, favour an appeal to such power (hereinafter saying as the re-appraising position) as the State Government might think fit to establish: Provided that the redrafting authority might engage the appeal after the expiry of the said time of thirty days if such authority is fulfilled that the appellant was prevented by adequate reason from recording the appeal on schedule. 1[(2) A re-appraising authority will comprise a solitary individual or three people as the State Government might figure fit, to be delegated by that Government.]

(3) The structure and way in which an appeal might be liked under sub-segment (1), the charges payable for such appeal and the strategy to be trailed by the re-appraising authority will be, for example, might be recommended.

(4) On receipt of an appeal liked under sub-segment (1), the appellant authority will, in the wake of giving the litigant and the State Board a chance of being heard, discard the appeal as quickly as could be expected.

(5)If the investigative authority verifies that any condition forced, or the variety of any condition, by and large, was irrational, then, at that point-

(a)where the appeal is in regard of the illogicalness of any condition forced, such authority might coordinate either that the condition will be treated as revoked or that there will be fill in for it such condition as appears to it to be sensible;

(b) where the appeal is concerning the illogicalness of any variety of a condition, such authority might coordinate either that the condition will be treated as proceeding in power unvaried or that it will be changed in such way as appears to it to be sensible.

Section 3(3) of Environment (Protection) Act 1986

Section 3(3) states that the Central Government may, on the off chance that it thinks of it as vital or convenient so to accomplish for the reasons for this Act, by request, distributed in the Official Gazette, comprise a position or specialists by such name or names as might be determined in the request to exercise and performing such of the forces and capacities (counting the ability to give bearings under section 5 of the Central Government under this Act and for taking measures concerning such of the issue referred in sub-section (2) as might be referenced in the request and subject to the management and control of the Central Government and the arrangements of such request, such position or specialists might practice the forces or play out the capacities or take the actions so referenced in the request as though such position or specialists had been engaged by this Act to practice those forces or play out those functions or take such measures.

Section 25 (1) of Water ( Prevention and Control of Pollution ) Act 1974

Section 25(1) states that Subject to the arrangements of this segment, no individual will, without the past assent of the State Board-

(a)build-up or find any ways to set up any industry, activity or measure, or any treatment and removal framework or any expansion or expansion thereto, which is probably going to release sewage or exchange emanating into a stream or well or sewer or ashore (such release being henceforth in this part alluded to as the release of sewage) or  

(b)bring into utilisation any new or modified source for the release of sewage or

(c)start to make any new release of sewage: Provided that an individual during the time spent finding a way anyways to build up any industry, activity or cycle preceding the start of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1988, for which no consent was fundamental before such inception, may continue doing as such for a time of 90 days from such initiation or then again, on the off chance that he has made an application for such assent, inside the said time of 90 days, till the removal of such application.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Assurance of life and individual freedom No individual will be denied of his life or individual freedom besides as per strategy set up by law

JUDGEMENT

The decision made by the appellant authority was reserved by the court and thinks about the use of respondent forgetting. As a matter of first importance court centres around an inquiry that whether the Central government to exclude an individual unsafe industry inside the 10 km region around the supply regardless of whether he is following every procedure and security measures to protect the environment. For this specific inquiry, the court arrives at a resolution that for the insurance of climate And with the respect of the 10-kilometre rule the exclusion ought not to be suitable in nature and NOC to the respondent could not be issued. Secondary Court considered the second issue that whether according to the report submitted in the court, respondent could guarantee exception from the court or not. In the light of this inquiry, the court went to a result that the respondent business would not cause any water contamination regardless of whether it was set up under the 10-kilometre space of repositories since the respondent promised to make fundamental moves and measures to protect the climate. Yet, Court dismissed promissory estoppel made by the to make an important move and precautionary measures. The court concluded that repositories are huge as a million of the public depending upon his supplies for drinking water and to give defend measures to respondents. Court held that protection could be failed because of any blunder of human activity or by a mishap. The court would not like to face challenges in this matter, and you lied on the prudent standard. In this manner, it was held that the court can not supersede the approach choice of the Government consequently can not give NOC to the respondent.

CONCLUSION

Human beings are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. The right to practical improvement is proclaimed as an unavoidable human right in the Declaration on the Right to Development, by the UN General Assembly. The 1992 Rio Conference announced, “People are at the centre point of worries about the maintainable turn of events.” Thus, the necessity of drinking water is a fundamental component forever, and it is the obligation of the state under Article 21 to give clean drinking water to its residents. The right to a good climate, alongside the right to maintainable turn of events, should be adjusted. As seen by the Supreme Court for this situation, there is a need to set up ecological courts to guarantee speedy disposal of climate legal action. Likewise, important measures need to be taken which will help to assist with reducing natural corruption to make explicit measures for such perilous industries.