A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD-II versus PROF. M.V. NAYUDU (RETD.) AND ORS.

A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD-II versus PROF. M.V. NAYUDU (RETD.) AND ORS.

State Government had no authority to grant exemption for hazardous industry within prohibited area of 10 KM from reservoirs, such exemption is without statutory backing, arbitrary and violative of Article 21; precautionary principle requires denial of consent as risk to drinking water cannot be ruled out; promissory estoppel does not apply against statute; right to clean drinking water is fundamental under Article 21.

Parties
Appellant: A.P. Pollution Control Board-II; Respondent: Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors.; 7th Respondent Industry: M/s. Surana Oils & Derivatives (India) Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Right to Clean Drinking Water, Precautionary Principle, Promissory Estoppel, Prohibition of Hazardous Industries, Statutory Exemption, Duty of State Under Article 21
Environmental Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Right to Clean Drinking Water Precautionary Principle Promissory Estoppel Prohibition of Hazardous Industries Statutory Exemption +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.P. Pollution Control Board-II

Appellant

Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors.

Respondent

M/s. Surana Oils & Derivatives (India) Ltd.

7th Respondent Industry

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exemption granted by State to hazardous industry within prohibited area violating statutory and constitutional provisions
  2. 2 Application of precautionary principle before permitting hazardous industry in catchment area
  3. 3 Applicability of promissory estoppel against statutory prohibition

Ratio Decidendi

State Government had no authority to grant exemption for hazardous industry within prohibited area of 10 KM from reservoirs, such exemption is without statutory backing, arbitrary and violative of Article 21; precautionary principle requires denial of consent as risk to drinking water cannot be ruled out; promissory estoppel does not apply against statute; right to clean drinking water is fundamental under Article 21.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and order of appellate authority under Section 28 of the Water Act, 1974 set aside.
  • Order of A.P. Pollution Control Board refusing permission to the 7th respondent under Section 25 of the Water Act restored.