Water Pollution: whether Conditional Consent amounts to consent to commence operations and pollute

M/s Lipton India Ltd. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 All 173.

M. Lal, & Jagdish Bhalla, JJ.

Indian Companies Act, 1956;

Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;

Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner Company had applied for consent of the Pollution Control Board for discharging trade effluents till such time as a proper plant for their treatment was made in order to satisfy the requirements of the Water (prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The petitioners claim that this conditional consent was granted. However the records submitted refer only to the conditional consent granted in 1988. The Board refused further consent and an appeal was preferred against this order. A criminal case was also filed by the Pollution Control Board through one of its officers for non-compliance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act. This petition was filed against this decision .In the judgement the Court had the opportunity to elaborately discuss the existing provisions of the Water Act.

The Court noticed Sec 44 of the Act which provides that whoever contravenes the provisions of Sec. 25 of the Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 6 months but which may be extend to 6 years and with fine. Sec. 25 of the Act, which deals with the restrictions on new outlets and new discharges and poster lates that subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall without the previous consent of the Board, bring into any new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well. The court had made notice of sec. 26 of the Act which provides that where immediately before the commencement of this Act any person was discharging any sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well, the provisions of sec. 25 shall apply in relations to such person as they apply in relation to the person referred to in that section subject to the modification that application for consent to be made under sub. section (2) of that section shall be made within a period of 3 months of the constitution of the State Pollution Control Board.

Further, the court had widely recognised the changes that had been bought about in Sec. 49 after amendment in the said section of the Act. The court held that Sec. 49 of the Act, has undergone drastic changes by the Act. No.53 of 1988 published in the Gazette of India on 3/10/88 where by old provisions of Sec. 49 have been replaced and in its place new provisions have been substituted. According to the new provisions of Sec.49 of the Act as they stand today do not require any sanction of the Board irrespective of the fact whether the complaint is filed by the Board or any other person.

Further it is also recognised that the reasons for ecological imbalance in our country has resulted in adverse effect of water pollution in the 20^th Century, an era of industrial revolution which has given rise to the problems of water pollution, air pollution and vibrations arising out of noise which also creates ecological imbalance.

The court dismissed the case, as the sanction did not suffer from any legal infirmities. The court also observed that despite there being effective legislation and imperative orders and directions issued by the Courts from time to time, no heed is being paid and pollution is continuing.