https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184088 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. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:29:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184088 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184088