G- CLASS TEST ON ENVIRONMENT LAW

i.The issue in this particular case study is whether Alliance & co. had received consent for
industry work of smelting from the State Pollution Control Board. By reviewing the action of
Alliance it is clear that they have applied for consent under Section 25 of the Water Act,
1974. Section 25 (7) is the rule that recognises ‘deemed consent’.
This is a fiction theory created in case the pollution control boards are lethargic and
inefficient and do not give prompt answers to the industries. It states that after the application
of consent by a company, if there is no answer for 4 months after such a request, it is deemed
that there has been consent by the pollution control board and the company can continue with
its industrial work. Even though it seems supportive to potential polluters, it is done so that
no loss or disadvantage is created for the requesting company by the delay caused by the
pollution control boards. This is reiterated in the Vijayanagara Housing case where the
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board did not give consent for more than 4 months and it
was held by the High Court that deemed consent had been invoked. However, in the instant
case, the State pollution control board was not lethargic or ineffective in its duties and
immediately answered the application for consent. Moreover, Alliance Co. did not get a no
objection certificate from the Central Pollution Contrl Board and hence cannot go ahead with
the industry works anyway. Moreover, even if there was consent, it can be revoked if the
industrial unit does not makes necessary changes for functioning without causing pollution.
Since the SPCB already refused consent by stating recorded reasons, it is clear that there is no
consent from them.Section 62 of the Water Act states that the State government supersedes
the authority of the State Pollution Control Boards. So even if there was deemed consent, the
state government’s order to shut down must be sufficient to shut down the company. The
company is causing an increase in the PM which is an increase in pollutants in the air and
causing noise pollution in silent zone areas (hospitals, educational institutions etc.) as stated
in Section 3 of the Air Act. Noise Pollution causes many problems to the environment as
stated in Church of God v. KKR Majestic case.
Hence, the conclusion is that there was no consent given, explicitly or deemed, to the
smelting company. It is also advised that Alliance Co. must shut down its functions until after
correcting its activities and making it more environment friendly. If the SPCB had not
communicated its decisions, it would be understandable that Alliance continued with its
activities, however since the State Government is directing a closure, it must do the same.
Since, the State does not have an Air Lab, the CPCB must aid the state in collecting a sample
and sending it to the lab and having it analysed by the analyst in order to follow right
procedure. Section 21 of Air Act provides that any person authorised by SPCB can enter the
premises for taking sample for evidence reasons.
ii. Section 24 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 is the non-obstant clause. This is also
called the notwithstanding clause and has 2 clauses. The first clause talks about the effect of
other laws. That is, if any other law in the country is inconsistent with this Act, it will have
effect notwithstanding these differences. Section 24(2) states that if there is another law
prescribing punishment for any environment offences other than this Act, the other law must
be followed as this Act was legislated for the purpose of environment protection and
promotion and not for punishments per se.