Deemed consent under water law cannot be denied later on new grounds without a legally recognised environmental risk.

Statutory deemed consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 accrues when a complete application remains undecided beyond the prescribed four-month period and is not refused in time. A later attempt to sustain refusal on a new ground of incompleteness was not accepted, and the appellate finding on limitation was treated as erroneous. Environmental objections also could not justify outright refusal without a Rule 5 notification for the alleged sensitive area and a real, non-negligible risk on the record. The board could still regulate the project by imposing conditions and safeguards rather than denying consent altogether.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to deemed consent under Section 25(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; (ii) Whether the Board could refuse consent despite deemed consent on environmental grounds.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to deemed consent under Section 25(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required an application complete in all respects, no prior grant or refusal within the prescribed period, and expiry of four months from the date of application. The application remained pending beyond the statutory period, and the Board did not reject it within time. The later attempt to justify refusal on the ground of incompleteness was not supported by the original order, and a fresh reason could not be added to sustain the refusal. The finding of the appellate authority on incompleteness and on the date from which limitation ran was held to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to deemed consent.

Issue (ii): Whether the Board could refuse consent despite deemed consent on environmental grounds.

Analysis: Refusal could not rest on an assumed sensitive-area status in the absence of a notification under Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The petitioner was not afforded a real opportunity to meet the environmental objection, and the record did not establish a non-negligible environmental risk of the kind required to invoke the precautionary principle. The Board remained empowered under Section 25(5) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to impose conditions and safeguards, so outright refusal was unwarranted on the material before it. Sustainable development and environmental protection had to be balanced on the facts found.

Conclusion: The Board was not justified in refusing consent despite deemed consent.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the writ petition was allowed, leaving the Board free to regulate the project by appropriate conditions and safeguards to protect the environment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory deemed consent accrues on expiry of the prescribed period, refusal cannot later be sustained by new reasons, and environmental objection must be supported by a legally recognised basis showing a real and non-negligible risk before consent is denied outright.

---