ORISSA STATE (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) BOARD versus M/S. ORIENT PAPER MILLS & ANR.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 741 · Decided: 10-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

) 
t 
ORISSA STATE (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF 
POLLUTION) BOARD 
V. 
MIS. ORIENT PAPER MILLS & ANR. 
MARCH I 0, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.) 
Environmental laws: . 
A 
B 
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Sections 19, 21, 22 C 
and 37: 
Gazette Notification declaring certain areas as Air Pollution Control 
Areas without framing appropriate rules under the provision of the Act-
Validity of-Held: Under the provision of/aw The State Government possesses 
power to notifY any area as Air Pollution Control Area by issuance of such D 
declarations by Gazette notification-No other manner is prescribed nor 
exists-Mere absence of rules would not divest the State of its statutory power 
declaring any area to be Air Pollution Control Area-Hence notification valid. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Jn such manner as may be prescribed"-Meaning of in the context of 
Section 19(1) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 
Word "An"-Meaning of-Takes colour in context with and manner in 
which is used. 
*• 
According to the prosecution, the respondent paper mill was situated 
in the Air Pollution Control Area. It was found by the appellant-Pollution 
Control Board that the said paper mill was emitting air pollutants in 
excess of standard tolerance limit, and its analysis reports were sent to 
E 
F 
the respondent but the same was not complied with. Appellant filed a G 
complaint in the Court of SDJM against the respondent for committing 
an offence punishable under Section 37(1) of Air (Prevention and Controi 
of Pollution) Act. SDJM framed charges against the respondent for non-
complying with the provisions contained in Sections 21 & 22 of the Act. 
Aggrieved, respondent filed a criminal Revision Petition which was allowed 
741 
H 
• 
742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.CR. 
A by the <;ourt of Sessions holding the area, where paper mill of the 
respondent was situated, not declared as Air Pollution Control Area in 
accordance with law. On appeal, the order was upheld by the High Court. 
Hence the present appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The State Government is empowered to declare any 
area within the State as an Air Pollution Control Area by notification in 
the official gazette. It may, however, be after consultation with the 
Pollution (Prevention and Control) Board and in the manner as may be 
C prescribed by Rules, framed for the purpose, by the State Government in 
exercise of its powers under Section 54(2)(k) of the Air (Prevention and 
Control) Act. [746-B-C; 747-AI 
1.2. Though the Act under Section 19 vests the State Government 
· with power to notify any area, in an official gazette as Air Pollution 
D Control Area but to say that exercise of such power is solely dependent 
upon framing of the rules prescribing the manner in which an area may 
be declared as air pollution control area, does not seem to be correct. 
E 
Section 19 says " ...... such manner as may be prescribed" and not "in the 
manner prescribed", or " ...... in the prescribed manner". The expression 
used leaves some lever or play in the working of the provision. The 
meaning of the word "as" takes colour in context with which it is used 
and the manner of its use as prefix or suffix etc. There is no rigidity 
about it and it may have the meaning of a situation of being in existence 
during a particular time or contingent, and so on and so forth. The 
reading of the provision under consideration makes it clear that the 
p manner of declaration is to be followed 'as may be prescribed' i.e. "if 
any" prescribed. Thus, in case the manner is not prescribed under the 
Rules, there is no obligation or requirement to follow any, except whatever 
the provision itself provides viz. Section 19 in the instant case which is 
also complete in itself even without any manner being prescribed to read 
the provision omitting this part "in such manner as may be prescribed". 
G Merely. by absence of Rules, the State would not be divested of its powers 
to notify in official gazette any area declaring it to be air pollution control 
area. In case, however, the Rules have been framed prescribing the 
manner, undoubtedly the declaration must be in accordance with such 
rules. The power which vests in an authority would not cease to exist 
H simply for the reason that the rules have not been framed or the manner 
( 
.. _ 
ORISSASTATE(PREVEN ANDCON.OFPOLL.)BOARD v.ORIENTPAPERMILLS 
743 
of exercise of the pow
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.