State's Power to Declare Air Pollution Control Areas Without Rules

The Supreme Court held that the State Government can validly declare an area as an Air Pollution Control Area without prescribed rules. Compliance with Sections 21 and 22 of the Air Act is mandatory, irrespective of rule prescriptions. The term "as may be prescribed" in Section 19 allows flexibility in declaration, not dependent on existing rules. The Court allowed the appeal, overturning lower court decisions, emphasizing that the absence of rules does not invalidate the State Government's power to declare Air Pollution Control Areas. The trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with the law, unaffected by the judgment's observations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notification declaring an area as Air Pollution Control Area.
2. Compliance with the provisions of Sections 21 and 22 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
3. Interpretation of the term "as may be prescribed" in Section 19 of the Act.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Notification declaring an area as Air Pollution Control Area:
The primary issue was whether the State Government could validly notify an area as an Air Pollution Control Area without prescribing the manner for such declaration under the Rules. The Supreme Court held that the absence of prescribed rules does not invalidate the notification. The Court emphasized that Section 19 of the Act empowers the State Government to declare any area as an Air Pollution Control Area by notification in the official gazette, even if the manner is not prescribed. The phrase "in such manner as may be prescribed" implies that if the manner is prescribed, it should be followed; otherwise, the notification remains valid.

2. Compliance with the provisions of Sections 21 and 22 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981:
The respondent was charged under Section 37(1) of the Act for not adhering to Sections 21 and 22, which mandate obtaining prior consent from the State Board and not allowing emissions beyond prescribed standards. The respondent argued that the area was not validly declared as an Air Pollution Control Area due to the absence of prescribed rules. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the notifications issued by the State Government were valid and the respondent was aware of the requirement to obtain consent and control emissions.

3. Interpretation of the term "as may be prescribed" in Section 19 of the Act:
The Court interpreted the term "as may be prescribed" to mean that the declaration of an area as an Air Pollution Control Area is not contingent upon the existence of prescribed rules. The Court referred to various legal dictionaries and previous judgments to conclude that the term allows for flexibility and does not render the State Government's power inoperative in the absence of rules. The Court cited the case of T. Cajee vs. Jormanik Siem and Anr., where it was held that the absence of rules does not negate the authority's power to act under the statute.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. The Court directed that the trial court resume proceedings in accordance with the law, unaffected by the observations made in this judgment. The decision underscores that the absence of prescribed rules does not invalidate the State Government's power to declare an area as an Air Pollution Control Area by notification in the official gazette.

---