Environmental prohibition in reservoir zones prevails over individual exemptions, promissory estoppel, and unsupported assurances of safety.

A total prohibition on polluting industries within the reservoir catchment and 10 km radius was treated as binding, so the State could not grant an individual exemption or require the Pollution Control Board to substitute safeguards for the ban. Applying the precautionary principle, the Court required the industry to show that its establishment would not endanger the reservoirs; expert material showed a real contamination risk, and the industry's assurances were insufficient. Promissory estoppel could not override the statutory bar, and prior permissions for land use or factory plans could not replace prior consent under the Water Act. Systemic directions were also issued for environmental adjudication and preventive action against existing industries.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could validly grant an exemption permitting a hazardous industry to be located within the prohibited 10 km zone around the drinking-water reservoirs under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. (ii) Whether, on the scientific material placed before the Court, the industry had discharged the burden of showing that its establishment would not endanger the reservoirs. (iii) Whether the industry could rely on promissory estoppel or on prior permissions to establish the industry without the Pollution Control Board's consent. (iv) Whether directions were needed regarding environmental adjudicatory bodies and the treatment of existing polluting industries in the area.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government could validly grant an exemption permitting a hazardous industry to be located within the prohibited 10 km zone around the drinking-water reservoirs under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

Analysis: Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 permits restriction of areas in which industries shall not be carried on or shall be carried on only with safeguards, and Section 5 empowers directions including closure or prohibition. The notifications and Government Orders created a total prohibition on polluting industries within the catchment area and the 10 km radius. Once that policy of total prohibition was in force, the State could not carve out an individual exemption for one industry or direct the Board to prescribe safeguards in place of the prohibition. Under the Water Act, the statutory scheme and the duty to protect clean drinking water did not permit an industry-specific exemption in a prohibited zone, and such a relaxation was arbitrary and contrary to the right to life and clean water.

Conclusion: The exemption was invalid and could not sustain the location of the industry within the prohibited area.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the scientific material placed before the Court, the industry had discharged the burden of showing that its establishment would not endanger the reservoirs.

Analysis: Applying the precautionary principle and the new burden-of-proof approach, the industry had to establish absence of danger. The expert reports of the National Environmental Appellate Authority, the University Department of Chemical Technology and the National Geophysical Research Institute showed hazardous raw materials, effluent risks, seepage, groundwater movement and a real possibility of contamination reaching the reservoirs. The Court treated the materials relied on by the industry as insufficient to rebut those findings and held that assurances of safe handling could not neutralise the substantial risk of irreversible pollution.

Conclusion: The industry failed to discharge the burden, and the safeguards suggested were not adequate to permit consent.

Issue (iii): Whether the industry could rely on promissory estoppel or on prior permissions to establish the industry without the Pollution Control Board's consent.

Analysis: After amendment, Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 prohibited even the establishment of an industry or steps taken to establish it without prior consent. Permissions for land use change, factory plans or a letter of intent could not override the statute. There can be no estoppel against a statute, and conduct contrary to the prohibition could not create equities in favour of the industry.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed and the industry could not rely on prior permissions to bypass statutory consent.

Issue (iv): Whether directions were needed regarding environmental adjudicatory bodies and the treatment of existing polluting industries in the area.

Analysis: The Court reiterated the need for specialist environmental adjudication and noted that several jurisdictions had developed expert environmental fora. It also directed the State to identify existing industries within the 10 km radius and to take preventive action with the Pollution Control Board so that pollution to the reservoirs could be prevented.

Conclusion: Appropriate systemic and preventive directions were issued for expert environmental adjudication and for existing industries in the prohibited zone.

Final Conclusion: The prohibition on hazardous industry in the reservoir catchment was upheld, the industry was denied consent, and the contrary orders were set aside; the State was also required to take preventive steps regarding other industries in the area.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute and validly issued environmental directions impose a total prohibition on polluting industries in a protected area, the State cannot grant an individual exemption or invoke promissory estoppel to override that prohibition, and consent must be refused where scientific material shows a real risk of environmental harm.

---