Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25. It is relevant to note that in the said case the Supreme Court was concerned with the correctness of an exemption granted to an industry by name Surana Oils and Derivatives India Limited from the G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996. It would be appropriate to note the basic facts in the said case in brief. In spite of the prohibition contained in G.O.Ms.No. 192 dt. 31-3-1994 prohibiting industries within 10 K.Ms. of the Himayatsagar and Osmansagar Reservoirs the said industry purchased land on 26-9-1995 situated within 10 K.Ms. of the Reservoirs. Initially the industry applied for consent from the A.P. Pollution Control Board in November, 1995 through the Industries Department of the State Government. The State Government by letter dated 28-11 -1995 recommended to the Government of India for grant or intent in relaxation of 10 K.Ms. rule subject to the industry obtaining NOC from the A.P. Pollution Control Board. The Government of India gave letter of intent on 9-1-1996 but required the industry to obtain no Objection Certificate from the Environmental Authority of the State. At that stage the Government reaffirmed the 10 K.Ms. prohibition in G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996. Thereafter the Pollution Control Board considered the application of the industry and rejected the same because of the 10 K.Ms. prohibition. However, the industry proceeded to obtain permission from the Gram Panchayat for establishing a factory and also obtained permission of the District Collector for change of land use and executed various civil works and thereafter applied to the A.P. Pollution Control Board for permission to establish the factory. In the application it was mentioned that one of the by-products of the industry was "glycerin, spent bleaching, earth and carbon and spent nickel catalysts". The A.P. Pollution Control Board once again rejected the application of the industry. Then the industry approached the State Government seeking exemption from the 10 K.Ms. rule contained in G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996 and the same was granted by the State Government on 3-7-1997 and thereby directed the A.P. Pollution Control Board to prescribe conditions for treatment/ disposal of solid wastes. However, the A.P. Pollution Control Board stuck to its decision and again refused NOC on 30-7-1997 relying upon G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996 and also upon the notification of the Government of India dated 1-2-1989 which showed this type of industry in its Red list. The Board categorically stated that it was not desirable to locate such an industry in the catchment area. Against the said order the industry preferred an appeal which was allowed by order dated 5-1 -1998. The order of the appellate authority was upheld by this court in W.P.No. 2215 of 1998. Then the matter was carried to the Supreme Court by the A.P. Pollution Control Board. Having considered several issues in detail the Supreme Court rendered the judgment on 27-1-1999. In the said decision (A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Naidu and Ors. ), the Supreme Court emphasized the need for scientific inputs before adjudicating complicated issues of pollution to environment and called for further reports from several experts on specific issues set out therein. Subsequently on receipt of the said reports the matter has been considered in detail in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M. V. Naidu and Ors. ((2001) 2 SCC 62). One of the specific points formulated was whether it was permissible for the State Government to issue an exemption for an individual hazardous industry within the area even if it be by way of asking the industry to provide safeguards. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court while taking note of the fact that the industry in question was one of the Red category industries as specified in the Government of India Notification dated 27-9-1988 and at any rate the same being an industry with high pollution potentiality, held that the safeguards suggested by the Board pursuant to the direction of the Government cannot be held to be adequate in the light of scientific material obtained by the court from three highly reputed sources. It is further held that in the facts of the case the Board could not be directed to suggest safeguards and there is every likelihood that safeguards could fail either due to accident as stated in the report or due to human error.