LexA.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD versus PROF. M.V. NA YUDU (RETD.) AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD A v. PROF. M.V. NA YUDU (RETD.) AND OTHERS JANUARY 27, 1999 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNAPHA RAO, JJ.] B Constitution of India 1950 : Articles 32, 136 and 226-Environmental Matters-Scientific and Tech- nical aspects of Environmental matters-Reference to expert bodies by C Supreme Court and High Courts--Pennissibility of-Held : Supreme Court and High Courts can refer Scientific and Technical aspects for investigation and opinion to expert bodies. Article 21-Life and Liberty--Environme11tal degradation-Held : En- viro11mental a~pects concem life-Hence, Article 21 attracted. D Environmental Law : Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Industrial Pollution Cases-Judicial intervention-Na tu re, Scope and Limits of-Ex- plained-Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974-Air (Preventio11 a11d Control of Pollutio11) Act, 1981-Hazardous Wastes (Ma11ageme11t a11d Handling) Rules, 1989--Enviro11mental (Protection) Act, 1986-National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995, National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997. The respondent-company was incorporated with the object of setting up an industry for production of BSS Caster Oil derivatives. The Govern- ment of India granted a letter of intent, subject to various conditions, inter-alia to obtain NOC from concerned State Pollution Control Board. E F The respondent-company applied to the A.P. Pollution Control Board (APPCB), seeking clearance to set up the unit. The A.P.P.C.B. rejected the G application on the ground that the unit was a polluting industry which fell under the red category of polluting industry under classification of in- dustries adopted by Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India. The company filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the order of APPCB. H 235 236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R. A Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, and held, that the company was not a polluting industry and also directed the APPCB to give its consent for the establishment of the factory. Some writ petitions were filed before the High Court against the appellate authority's order. The respon- dent-company also filed writ petition. The High Court dismissed all those B writ petitions. Hence these appeals. In the instant appeals, the following questions were formulated for being referred to the appellate authority under the National Environmen- tal Appellate Authority Act, 1997 : C (a) Is the respondent-company a hazardous one and what is its pollution potentiality, taking into account the nature of the product, the effiuents and its location ? (b) Whether the operation of the industry is likely to affect the sensitive catchment area resulting in pollution of the Himayat Sagar and D Osman Sagar Lakes supplying drinking water to the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad ? Referring the above questions to the appellate authority and giving certain .directions, this Court E HELD : 1.1. Environmental concerns arising in the Supreme Court under Article 32 or under Article 136 or under Article 226 in the High · Courts are of equal importance as human rights concerns. Both are to be . traced to Article '21 which deals with the fundamental right to life and liberty; 'While environmental aspects, concern "life", human rights aspects p concern "liberty". In the context of emerging jurisprudence relating to environmental matters-as is the case in matters relating to human rights-it is the duty of this Court to render justice by taking all aspects into consideration. However, in such cases sometimes, this Court has been finding sufficient difficulty in providing adequate solutions to meet the requirements of public interest environmental protection, elimination of G pollution and sustained development. The monitoring of a case as it progresses before the professional authority and the consideration of objections raised by affected parties to the opinion given by these profes- sional technical bodies have again been creating complex problems. There- fore, with a view to ensure that there is neither danger to the environment H nor to the ecology and at the same time ensuring sustainable development, 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R. A judicial and also technical personnel well versed in environmental laws. .... l This court not only contemplated a combination of a judge and technical experts but also an appeal to the Supre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.