TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>State Exemption for Hazardous Industry Near Reservoirs Invalidated: Emphasizing Water Source Protection</h1> <h3>A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD II Versus PROF. M.V. NAYUDU (RETD.) AND ORS</h3> The Court held that the State Government's exemption for a hazardous industry from the 10 KM prohibition near reservoirs was invalid, emphasizing the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of exemption granted by the State Government for a hazardous industry within a prohibited area.2. Permissibility of the State Government granting exemption for a single industry within a prohibited area under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.3. Adequacy of safeguards and exemption from the 10 KM prohibition based on expert reports.4. Application of the principle of promissory estoppel.5. Establishment of Environmental Courts and the inclusion of environmental experts.6. Relief and action against existing industries within the 10 KM radius of the reservoirs.Summary:Point 1 and 2:The Court examined the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, particularly Sections 2(b), 2(e), 3(2), and 5, as well as the notifications issued by the Central and State Governments. The Court held that the State Government's exemption to the seventh respondent from the 10 KM prohibition under GO 111 dated 8.3.96 was invalid. The prohibition was a total ban on polluting industries within 10 KM of the reservoirs, and the State Government could not grant exemptions for individual industries within this area. The Court emphasized that such exemptions could lead to catastrophic consequences for the drinking water reservoirs catering to the needs of millions of people, thus violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Point 3:The Court referred to the principle of the 'precautionary principle' and the 'burden of proof' in environmental matters. The seventh respondent failed to prove that establishing the industry within the 10 KM radius would not endanger the reservoirs. The Court relied on the exhaustive reports from the National Environmental Appellate Authority, the University Department of Chemical Technology, Bombay, and the National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad. These reports indicated a high risk of pollution to the reservoirs, and the Court concluded that the safeguards suggested by the appellant Board would not be adequate to prevent pollution. Therefore, the exemption could not be granted.Point 4:The Court addressed the principle of promissory estoppel applied by the appellate authority. It was held that the seventh respondent could not claim equities or rely on promissory estoppel because the actions taken by the industry were contrary to the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The industry could not seek an NOC after violating the policy decision of the Government.Point 5:The Court reiterated the need for constituting Environmental Courts or tribunals with environmental scientists/experts as members. The Court referred to international experiences and reports, emphasizing the importance of specialized environmental jurisdictions. The Law Commission was requested to consider reviewing environmental laws and the need for Environmental Courts in India.Point 6:The Court directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to identify and take action against existing industries within the 10 KM radius of the reservoirs that might be causing pollution. The State and the Pollution Control Board were instructed not to permit any polluting industries within this radius. A report on the pollution potential of existing industries was to be submitted to the Court within four months.Relief:The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and the order of the appellate authority under Section 28 of the Water Act, 1974. The order of the appellant Board refusing permission to the seventh respondent under Section 25 of the Water Act was restored. The Court acknowledged the excellent reports submitted by the expert bodies and directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to pay any expenses or fees claimed by these bodies. The matter was listed for further consideration after four months upon receipt of the State's report. Appeals were allowed with no costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
