Case Analysis: Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board V. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.
Citation: AIR 1999 SC 812; 2001 (2) SCC 62

Abstract:
This case revolves around the challenge to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) rejecting the No Objection Certificate (NOC) for establishing a vegetable oil production unit due to its proximity to sensitive water sources. The key issues include whether the unit is a hazardous one, the applicability of the 10-kilometre rule from water bodies, and whether the proposed operations would adversely impact the quality of water in Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes, which supply drinking water to Hyderabad and Secunderabad.

Bench: Justice S.B. Majmudar, Justice M. Jagannath
Date: 27 January 1999
Parties:
Appellant: Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board
Respondent: Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.
Statutes/Constitutional Provisions Involved:
Article 136 of the Constitution of India
Section 28 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Section 3(3) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Section 25(1) of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

Introduction:
The respondent sought to establish a vegetable oil manufacturing plant in Peddashpur, Andhra Pradesh, located within 10 kilometers of two major water bodies, Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar. The Ministry of Environment and Forests had categorized the production of vegetable oils as a hazardous activity. Consequently, the Andhra Pradesh state authorities imposed a restriction on industries in this zone to protect water quality. Despite the applicant's arguments and attempts to obtain the necessary clearances, including seeking exceptions, the APPCB refused to grant the NOC, leading to the present appeal.

Background of the Case:
The respondent sought to establish a vegetable oil production facility on land within 10 kilometers of crucial water reservoirs. The APPCB rejected the NOC application due to the unit's classification as a 'red' hazardous industry and its proximity to the water bodies. An appeal was made to the Appellate Authority under Section 28 of the Water Act, which ruled in favor of the respondent. This decision was challenged by the APPCB in the Supreme Court.

Facts of the Case:

• The respondent planned to establish a vegetable oil factory on land acquired in Peddashpur, close to important lakes.
• The Ministry of Forest and Environment's 1988 directive classified such industries as hazardous.
• The Andhra Pradesh government issued a directive in 1994 restricting industrial activity within a 10-kilometer radius of these lakes.
• The respondent's application for an NOC was rejected by the APPCB based on this restriction and the hazardous nature of the industry.
• An appeal was made under Section 28 of the Water Act, which led to a favorable ruling for the respondent from the Appellate Authority, prompting the APPCB's challenge in the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised Before the Court:

• Validity of the APPCB's order rejecting the NOC.
• Correctness of the Appellate Authority's decision under Section 28 of the Water Act, 1974.
• Legality of the exemption granted to the respondent concerning the 10-kilometer rule.
• Whether the industry in question poses a hazard to the environment and the water bodies.

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments:

• The APPCB argued that the industry falls under the hazardous 'red' category and poses a risk to the environment.
• The appellant contended that the unit's proximity to sensitive water bodies (within 10 km) violated the state's regulations aimed at protecting water quality.

Respondent's Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the industry had adopted state-of-the-art eco-friendly technology to minimize pollution.
• They presented affidavits and expert reports indicating that the industry would not adversely impact the environment or the water bodies.

Related Provisions:

• Article 136 allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against judgments of any court or tribunal in India.
• Section 28 of the Water Act, 1974 provides for appeals against orders made by the State Board concerning pollution control.
• Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empowers the Central Government to establish authorities for environmental protection.
• Article 21 ensures the protection of life and personal liberty.
• Section 25(1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 mandates obtaining prior consent from the State Board before setting up an industry that could pollute.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court addressed two primary issues:

• Whether the industry is hazardous and whether its operations could potentially pollute the water bodies: The Court found that the industrial activities posed a significant risk to the water quality of Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar, thereby justifying the restrictions imposed.
• Whether the 10-kilometer restriction could be relaxed given the respondent's adherence to environmental safeguards: The Court held that the relaxation of this rule was inappropriate given the environmental sensitivity of the area.

The Supreme Court referred the case to the National Environmental Appellate Authority to ascertain the exact pollution potential of the industry and its likely impact on the water bodies. The Court emphasized the importance of environmental protection and the precautionary principle in industrial operations near sensitive ecological zones.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the APPCB's decision to reject the NOC, reinforcing the stringent application of environmental protection laws. The Court underscored that while industries must comply with environmental regulations, any potential risk to vital resources like water bodies must be critically assessed. The referral to the National Environmental Appellate Authority ensured that an expert body would review the specific environmental concerns before any further action could be taken.