Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for R1-Board submits that the applicability of Section 25 is not dependent on the discharge of trade effluents over and above the prescribed standards. The words likely to discharge sewage or trade effluents make it abundantly clear that likely discharge of sewage or trade effluent from industry....etc is enough to attract the requirement of Section 25 of the Water Act, 1974. The effluents discharged from the petitioner-industry are with several parameters having potential on water bodies, on land etc. The consent that is granted under Section 25 is for the industry operation or process, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluents, but not for the pollution that is generated. The proviso which is introduced through 1988 amendment Act further makes it clear that industries which have been in operation without consent were given three months time to apply for consent and continue to run till disposal of such application. The word 'establishment' should not be understood only to mean pre-production stage in an industry. The word establishment denotes a continuous act and so long as the activity goes on the Board is under obligation to call upon the unit to have the consent for operation from the Board. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 64(j)(k) of the Water Act, 1974 has rationalized the consent fee structure vide G.O. Ms No. 157 EFS&T, dated 22.11.1997. The G.Os have not only rationalized the consent fee structure on pollution potential and capital outlay to the units but also prescribed the consent fee for operation annually. The application of quid pro quo is uncontextual. The amount realized by way of consent fee are being utilized by the Board for discharging the functions under: