Case Brief: A.P. Pollution Board v. M.V. Nayadu and Ors. 

Name of the Case	A.P. Pollution Board v. M.V. Nayadu and Ors.
Citation	1999 INSC 24
Date of the Judgement	27.01.1999
Petitioner	A.P. Pollution Control Board
Respondent	M.V. Nayadu and Ors
Bench/ Judges	S.B. Majmudar and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Statutes Involved	Constitution of India, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, National Environment Tribunal Act (now repealed), and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Important Articles/ Sections	Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974- Section 28

FACTS 

In January 1995, the respondent company was incorporated as a public limited company with the object of setting up an industry for the production of castor oil derivatives such as Hydrogenated Castor Oil, 12-Hydroxy Stearic Acid, Dehydrated Castor Oil, etc. Thereafter, the industry applied to the Ministry of Industries for a Letter of Intent. They purchased 12 acres of land in Peddaspur village and applied for consent through the single window clearance committee of the Commissionerate of Industries, government of Andhra Pradesh. The government approved, but this approval was subject to NOC from the A.P. Pollution Control Board and other conditions, prior to taking such implementation steps. 

The clearance was rejected for the industry by the A.P. Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as Board) since the proposed site fell within the prohibited area, but was directed alternative site. After the alternative location was approved, the company again made an application to the Board. Meanwhile, the industry took an exemption from the Government to function in the prohibited area. However, the Board rejected the application, stating that the unit is a polluting industry and falls under the red category of polluting industries. 

Aggrieved by the rejection of the letter, the respondent company appealed under Section 28 of the Water Act. Before the appellate authority, the industry filed an affidavit of Professor M Santappa, Scientific Officer to the Tamil Nadu Board, in support of its contentions that the company adopted the latest eco-friendly technology using all the safeguards regarding pollution. The appeal was allowed and ruled in favor of the industry.  

Public Interest Cases were filed challenging the order of the appellate authority and deeming it as arbitrary and contrary to the interim orders passed by the High Court. In its response, the respondent company filed a WP for directing the Board to give its consent. The High Court dismissed the Public Interest cases, citing that the Board cannot refuse consent only because an industry produced hazardous substances, as appropriate safeguards can be taken and allowed the WP of the industry. 

The board filed 5 appeals against such judgment.  

PROVISIONS INVOLVED 

Constitution of India 

Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.  

Article 47: The duty of the state is to raise the level of nutrition, increase the standard of living, and improve public health.  

Article 48 A: Duty of the state to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forest and wildlife 

Article 51-A(g): It shall be the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, such as forests, lakes, rivers, and to have compassion for the living creatures  

Article 136: Special Leave Petitions to Supreme Court 

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 

Section 31: Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Board has the right to appeal within 30 days. 

Environment Protection Act, 1986 

Section 3(3): The Central government has the power to take all such actions which it deems necessary and expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling, and abating environmental pollution.   

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 

Section 25: It provides for restriction on new outlets and new discharges without consent from the State Board. 

Section 28: It provides for right to appeal against the order of the Pollution Control Board within 30 days. 

LEGAL ISSUES 

1. Whether the Board’s order to rejecting the NOC is valid? 
2. Whether the Appellate authority’s decision under section 28 of the Water Act is reasonable, and correct? 
3. Whether the exemption order granted by the government is valid and legal? 
4. Whether the industry in question poses a hazard to the environment and water bodies? 

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT 

1. The board argued that the respondent industry sought to establish a chemical plant within 10 kilometers of lakes, which are crucial drinking water sources. 
2. Board objected to the location citing 1996 government policy prohibiting hazardous industries within 10 kilometers of major drinking water reservoirs. 
3. The board emphasized the need to apply the precautionary principle, placing the onus of burden of proof on the industry to demonstrate that its operation would not harm the environment. 
4. Industry falls under the hazardous red category and poses a risk to the environment. 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT 

1. The respondent argued that industry had adopted the eco-friendly. Technology to minimize pollution. 
2. They presented affidavits and reports of the experts claiming that industry would not adversely impact the environment over the bodies. 

JUDGMENT 

The court held that the company posed a significant risk to the water quality of the rivers, thereby justifying the restrictions imposed as the respondent failed to demonstrate that its operations would not endanger the lakes or drinking water supply. 

The court further recognized the significance of the precautionary principle in environmental law, holding that when there is uncertainty about the potential for serious environmental harm, the burden of proof falls on the party proposing the potentially harmful activity. 

The court emphasized the precedence of Environmental Protection over industrial interest. 

The Supreme Court referred the matter to the National Environmental Appellate Authority (NEAA) to determine two key issues: 

1. Is the respondent industry a hazardous one, and what is the pollution potentially, taking into account the nature of the product, the effluents, and its location? 
2. Whether the operation of the industry is likely to affect the sensitive catchment area, resulting in pollution to the drinking water bodies? 

CONCLUSION 

The court sided with the Pollution Control Board's decision of refusing to permit the hazardous industry within 10 kilometer of vital drinking water source and set up precedent for applying the precautionary principle and shifting the burden of proof to industries and environmental matters. 

REFERENCES

1. A.P. Pollution Control Board  vs. M.V. Nayadu and Ors.  (27.01.1999 - SC) : MANU/SC/0032/1999