A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD-II versus PROF. M.V. NAYUDU (RETD.) AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 01-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD-II 
A 
v. 
PROF. M.V. NAYUDU (RETD.) AND ORS. 
DECEMBER I, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Pollution laws : 
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986- -Sections 2(b), 3(2), 5-- Water 
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974- -Sections 2(e), 2(k), 17, 18, C 
19, 25-.00 by State prohibiting setting up any industry within JO KM~ from 
the banks of the two lakes, Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar; which supplies 
drinking water to twin cities, Hyderabad and Secunderabad--By a GO, State 
Government subsequently granting an exemption to a single industry, which 
is declared to be hazardous, tu be set up within the prohibited area- -Held, D 
the GO granting exemption is without statutory backing and also wholly 
arbitrary and violative of- Article 21- -Constitution of India. 
Precautionary Principle- When to be applied-Held, permission to set 
up hazardous industry should not be allowed on mere assurances as the 
chance of an accident, within such close proximity of the reservoirs cannot E 
be rut ed out. 
Principle of Promissory Estoppel-Applicability of- Permission from 
Gram Panchayat and Collector for the use of the land and grant of letter of 
intent from the Government-Action of the industry contrary to the statute-·- F 
Estoppe/ cannot be against a statute-Hence question of estoppel does not 
arise. 
Constitution of India- Article 21--Right to healthy environment as 
part of right to life-Held, access to drinking water is fundamental to life and 
there is a duty on the State under the Constitution to provide clean drinking G 
water to its citizens. 
Union of India issued a Notification in 1988 listing various hazardous 
industries in different categories in exercise of its powers vested under the 
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention 
249 
H 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SCPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Water (Prevention and Control of 
Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986 a11d 
directing the Pollution Control Boards of the States to keep in view the 
pollution-causing potential of the industry before granting consent from the 
appellant-Board for setting up. Consequent to the directive, the State of Andhra 
B Pradesh issued GO 192 dated 31.3.94 prohibiting location of industries within 
10 KMs of the two reservoirs, Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar, which caters 
to the needs of drinking water to twin cities - Hyderabad and Secunderabad. 
Respondent industry applied for consent from the appellant-Board for setting 
up factory within 10 KMs in November 1995 through the Industries 
Department of the State Government. The State recommended to the 
C Government oflndia for grant of letter of intent in relaxation of 10 K.."1s, rule 
subject to the respondent industry obtaining NOC from the appellant Board. 
The Government of India granted the relaxation. Pursuant to GO 111 dated 
8.3.96 issued by the Government reaffirming the 10 KMs, prohibition, the 
Pollution Control Board rejected the application of the respondent industry. 
D 
The respondent industry obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat 
for establishing a factory and from the District Collector for change of land 
use from agricultural to non-agricultural and executed various civil works 
in spite of the prohibition. The appellant Board rejected another application 
of the respondent industry for setting up factory. The respondent industry 
E then applied to the State Government seeking exemption from the 10 KMs, 
rule contained in GO 111 dated 8.3.96 on the ground that it had invested huge 
amounts to establish the industry and had almost completed the civil works 
and had purchased and installed the machinery. The State by GO No. 153 dated 
3.7.97 granted exemption from GO 111 to the respondent industry and 
directed the appellant Board to prescribe conditions for treatment/disposal of 
F aqueous/solid waste. Compelled by the direction of the State, the Appellant 
Board passed an order dated 16. 7.97 directing the respondent industry to take 
various precautions/safeguards as stated in the order. 
The Society for Preservation of Environment and Quality Life filed a 
G Writ Petition for quashing the exemption order in GO 153 and obtained stay. 
The appellant-Board refused to grant NOC as it was not desirable to locate 
such an industry in the catchment area in view of GO 111. The respondent 
industry filed an appeal und

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.