Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In the additional affidavit dt. 9-2-2003, the petitioner has specified the alleged pollution potential activities of the Airport as under:

(a) The taxic emissions from the aircraft engines, even after incorporating latest technological advances, which burn thousand of litres of gasoline while landing and taking off. The water bodies in the vicinity of airports get contaminated due to acidification of the emissions from the aircraft.

(b) Storm water run off from airfield paved areas like runways, taxiways, parking aprons etc., combines a variety of and concentration of non-degradable and toxic heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and petroleum compounds. These pavements provide large wide area (non-point source) contamination of drinking water sources through rain water runoff, which a major contaminant of water bodies.

17. Earlier vide G.O.Ms.No. 352, MA, dated 30-7-2001, a separate Hyderabad Airport development Authority was created under the Andhra Pradesh Urban Area Development Act, 1975 to promote and regulate the developments in the area concerned, including 89 villages. That authority is preparing a master plan for promoting and regulating development of the 458 sq. Kms (1,13,000 acres) of area including the new Airport.

18. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the A.P. Pollution Control Board shows that having received the application of the 2nd respondent dated 16-9-2002 for grant of consent for establishment of International Airport at Shamshabad together with the Environment Impact assessment and Executive Summary of the Project, the application was forwarded to the Regional Officer Pollution Control Board on 8-11 -2002 to process the application after conducting public hearing as per the environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 27-1-1994. On 25-11-2002 the District Collector constituted the public hearing panel consisting of eight members. The notice of public hearing was published on 27-11-2002 in the Hindu and Eenadu, which are published from Hyderabad and have wide circulation in the twin cities. Wide publicity was also given in the locality about the public hearing to be held on 28-12-2002. Thereafter, public hearing was conducted on 28-12-2002 at the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad, which was attended by a large number of people from all walks of life including nongovernmental organizations and particularly a representative from the petitioner-Society. The aspects relating to pollution potential, safety measures, environmental impact and various measures proposed to be taken to protect the environment were thoroughly discussed in the public hearing. There was no objection for establishment of International Airport at Shamshabad.

26. Now coming to the case on hand the question to be considered is whether the Airport has to be treated as a "polluting industry" to attract the prohibition under Clause (i) of G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996. It is true that Clause (i) also refers to "other establishments that generate pollution" but as can be seen from Clause (f) the total prohibition is only in respect of a polluting industry. As explained in the counter-affidavit of the respondents 1 and 2, it is to be noted that an International Airport consists of several buildings and several types of activities. Some of these activities do no cause pollution at all. Some activities have a potential for pollution by application of precautionary principle. For example the main building where passengers arrived and later emplaned has little or no pollution potential. Other activities like the area where foodstuffs are prepared and the Aircrafts serviced in the hangers etc., may cause a limited amount of pollution. Admittedly the initial proposals submitted by the proponent were revised as per the instructions of the A.P. Pollution Control Board, in the light of G.O.Ms.No. 111 and several activities which may generate pollution are located beyond 10 K.Ms. limit. Expert Committees have examined these issues with great care keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court. The questions, whether any of the activities continue to be located within 10 K.Ms. zone and whether the same is permissible would be dealt with us separately. However, on the basis of the material on record there can be no doubt to conclude that the 'Airport' is not a "polluting industry" which is totally prohibited under G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996. In these circumstances we are unable to appreciate the contentions put forth by the petitioner treating the "Airport" on par with a polluting industry with which the Supreme Court was concerned in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Naidu and Ors. (1 supra).

29. Thus it is clear that the activities of the proposed Airport cannot be placed on par with an industry with high pollution potentiality and termed as hazardous by the Experts which was the subject matter of the decision in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M. V. Naidu. Thus the present case is clearly distinguishable on facts.

30. Then the only question that remains to be considered is whether the A.P. Pollution Control Board has adverted to the effect of permitting some of the activities within the prohibited area of 10 K.Ms. from Himayatsagar lake. The fact that (a) one full run-way (along with taxi ways etc.) (b) half of second run-way (c) main terminal building and (d) taking off and landing of major Aircrafts continue to be located within the prohibited zone of 10 K.Ms. has not been denied by the respondents. However the specific case of the respondents 1 to 3 is that the air pollution and noise pollution are the only two types of possible pollution and both the said aspects have been examined by the A.P. Pollution Control Board in detail and the same was found to be negligible and within the standards prescribed. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that all the toxic emissions released in the air in large quantities at the Airport in the close vicinity of drinking water source will settle down and contaminate the water making it totally unsafe for drinking purposes. The further allegation is that the run-off from Air filed pavements such as run-ways, taxi-ways, parking aprons etc. combines a variety and concentration of metals, particulate and petroleum components. According to the petitioner these pavements provide large wide-area (non-point source) contamination of drinking water source through rain water run-off which is a major contaminant of the water bodies. It is alleged that even if it seeps into the ground water it will affect the water of the lake.