A.P.

Pollution Control Board

v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.
In the Supreme Court of India

NAME OF THE A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V.

CASE Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.

CITATION 1994 (3) SCC 1

DATE OF CASE 27 January 1999  

APPELLANT  A.P. Pollution Control Board

RESPONDENT Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.  

BENCH/JUDGE Justice S.B. Majmudar, Justice M. Jagannath

STATUTES /  Article 136 of Constitution of India, Section

CONSTITUTION 28 of Water Act 1974, Section 3(3) of
INVOLVED Environment (Protection) Act 1986, Article
21 of Constitution of India, Section 25(1) of
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act 1974  

INTRODUCTION
A Special Leave Petition (SPL) was recorded by the A. P. Pollution Control Board
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against prof. M.V. Nayuda (respondent
organisation). The respondent business pursued to supply produce B.S.S. Castor Oil
subsidiaries like Hydrogenated Castor Oil, 12-Hydroxy Stearic Acid, Dehydrated
Castor Oil, methylated 12-HSA, Fatty Acids with by items like Glycerine, Spent
Bleaching Earth, Carbon and Spent Nickel Catalyst. Before setting up an industry, it
had been exposed to various clearance. In 1995, the respondent business applied to
the Ministry of Industry, Government of India for the letter of Intent under the
Industries  Act, 1951.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh kept in touch with the Ministry of Industry,  as
under: “The State Government suggests the use of the unit for grant of letter of goal
for the production of B.S.S. Castor Oil unwinding the locational limitation subject to
No Objection Certificate (NOC) from A.P. Contamination Control Board, past of
making execution strides.”
In 1996, the Government of India gave the letter of expectation for assembling of
B.S.S. Grade Castor Oil (15,000 tons each year) and Glycerine (600 tons each year)
are subject to bound conditions which are a Confirmation Certificate from the State
Director of Industries and a Certificate from the elaborate State Pollution Control
Board. As per the above conditions put somewhere around the GOI, the respondent
business applied to the A.P. contamination Control Board for NOC.
The utilisation of the business was dismissed by the Board on the ensuing grounds of
the unit could be a contaminating industry and falls under the ‘RED’ class of the
characterisation received by the Ministry of Environment and Forest and the
projected business was put inside 10k.m. area of the two lakes, Himayat Sagar and
Osman Sagar that was denied not exclusively by the Ministry of Environment and
Forest anyway moreover by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
An appeal was recorded by the respondent business under Section 28 of the Water
Act, 1974. An affidavit was documented before the redrafting authority expressing
that it had embraced the most current eco-friendly innovation which is utilising every
protection concerning contamination. On the above conflicts, the investigative power
announced that said industry is not a dirtying industry.
The respondent industry, in its turn, recorded a Writ Petition for directing the A.P.
Contamination Control Board to oversee its assent as an outcome to the request for
the investigative power. Andhra Pradesh commented on the request for the
investigative authority under Section 28 of Water Act, 1974 and held that just
because industry created unsafe substances, the assent could not be denied. The High
Court coordinated A.P. Contamination Control Board to allow to agree exposed to
such conditions as may be forced by the Board. It is against this request, the Pollution
Control Board documented this extraordinary leave appeal.
FACTS OF THE CASE
 In this case a new factory for the creation of vegetable oils should be built by
respondents in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent industry bought a land
parcel in Indore town named Peddashpur. Inside the scope of the village the
supplies that give drinking water to the 5 million individuals around the space.
 In the year 1988 the Ministry of Forest and Environment set up the red list of
unsafe enterprises. In that red list, the name of respondents industry was
likewise recorded. 
 This warning was given by the Central Government dependent on its force
under the Eater counteraction and control of Pollution Act of 1974 just as the
Air anticipation and control of contamination Act of 1981. 
  In 1994 under the Directive Principles of Central Government, the State
Government forces a warning where it was referenced that the foundation of
any industry inside 10 kilometres of repositories is to be restricted by law. 
 In 1995 could not apply for getting the NOC from the territory of Andhra
Pradesh Pollution Control Board for the foundation of his industry into that
space. It was established by the climate authority of the state. 
 Government reaffirmed the standard in 1996. Thus, the State of Andhra
Pradesh Pollution Control Board dismissed the application because of that
standard.
 The respondent was informed by the Commission of Industries that he should
select an elective region however he did not pay attention to the commission of
ventures different common works and introduced apparatus. 
 Without a doubt, the State of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board the
respondent applied for a NOC.
 Then, at that point likewise the Board dismissed the application. 
 Then, at that point reacted fought that he contribute a lot of cash to the
foundation of the business and its activities 
 Thereafter, State Government in the wake of assessing demand made by the
respondent.
 Then, at that point the authorisation and the solution alongside the rules to the
respondent were given to be followed water contamination. 
 Thereafter respondent recorded an apple before the investigative Authority
under Section 28 of the Water Act. 
 Investigative position switch the orders made by the province of Andhra
Pradesh Pollution Control Board by giving thinking that the respondent had
utilised the most recent method for to prevent ecological contamination.
 At last, the giving of NOC is passable to the respondent.
ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
 What is the validity of the orders passed by the A.P. Contamination Control
Board? 
 The rightness of the sets of the Appellate Authority under area 28 of the Water
Act, 1974? 
 What is the legitimacy of exception allowed for the activity of the 10 k.m.
rule? 
 In what ways that the mechanical parts of the natural law cases should be
mediated? 
 Whether the industry of respondent is a hazardous one?
 What is industries contamination possibility, considering the idea of the item,
the effluents and its area? 
  Regardless of whether the activity of the business is probably going to
influence the sensitive region bringing about contamination of the Himayat
Sagar and Osman Sagar Lakes providing drinking water to the twin urban areas
of Hyderabad and Secunderabad?
ARGUMENT FROM APPELLANT SIDE
 The appealing party of this case was the A. P. Pollution control board which
fought that the respondent business could not begin its common works and
development without getting approval from A.P. Pollution Control Boards.
 According to the appellant the unit is a polluting industry that will harm the
environment and fall under the red category of polluting industries.
 The appellant states that the proposed site felt within a 10 km radius and that
area was not permitted for construction of the industry.
 The appellant even presented the items made by respondent industry would
lead to the  following pollutants, first is Nickel (strong waste) which is a
substantial metal and an unsafe waste under the Hazardous Waste
(Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, second is a capability of release or
run-off from the plant consolidated joining oil and other side effects and the
third is Emission of sulphur dioxide and oxide of nitrogen.”
ARGUMENT FROM RESPONDENT SIDE
 The respondent argued after the dismissal of the letter of the respondent
industry for getting the NOC, they appealed under Section 28 of the Water Act
before the investigative authority.
 Along with this the respondent presented a sworn statement of Shri Santapa
who was a policeman of the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board which was in
the blessing of the respondent industry. In that testimony, it was expressed that
industry had followed just as received eco agreeable innovation by utilising all
the shielding measures for the insurance of climate.
 Respondent industry Director even submitted an affidavit statement clarifying
the insights about the innovation utilised in the erection of the plant.
 Another report was additionally presented by the respondent business
pronouncing utilised by them is acquired from the Indian Institute of Chemical
innovation of Hyderabad which is an exceptionally prestigious and that
industry had given an endorsement announcing that this industry would not
release any acidic influents which are destructive for the climate. Based on the
above affirmation and reports it was fought that industry is not a dirtying
industry.
JUDGEMENT
The decision made by the appellant authority was reversed by the court and thinks
about the use of respondent forgetting. As a matter of first importance court centres
around an inquiry that whether the Central government to exclude an individual
unsafe industry inside the 10 km region around the supply regardless of whether he is
following every procedure and security measures to protect the environment.
For this specific inquiry, the court arrives at a resolution that for the insurance of
climate And with the respect of the 10-kilometre rule the exclusion ought not to be
suitable in nature and NOC to the respondent could not be issued.
Secondary Court considered the second issue that whether according to the report
submitted in the court, respondent could guarantee exception from the court or not. In
the light of this inquiry, the court went to a result that the respondent business would
not cause any water contamination regardless of whether it was set up under the 10-
kilometre space of repositories since the respondent promised to make fundamental
moves and measures to protect the climate.
Yet, Court dismissed promissory estoppel made by the to make an important move
and precautionary measures. The court concluded that repositories are huge as a
million of the public depending upon his supplies for drinking water and to give
defend measures to respondents.
The Court held that protection could be failed because of any blunder of human
activity or by a mishap. The court would not like to face challenges in this matter,
and you lied on the prudent standard. In this manner, it was held that the court can not
supersede the approach choice of the Government consequently can not give NOC to
the respondent.