Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(3)ALD95; 2005(3)ALT715
..... 2000. the effluents discharged by the petitioner-industry are trade effluents and satisfy the definition of pollution in section 2(e) of the water act, 1974. the petitioner-industry comes within the purview of the water act, 1974 and the air act, 1981 and consequently the board has authority to control, regulate or interfere with the operations of the petitioner-industry. in conclusion, he ..... for suitable periods so as to enable them to monitor observance of the prescribed conditions, certain amendments have been made to various provisions of the water act, 1974 by the act called water (prevention and control of pollution) amendment act, 1988. the amended section 25 reads as follows:'restrictions on new outlets and new discharges:-- (1) subject to the provisions of this section ..... system after having established such industry, operation process or treatment or disposal system is not traceable to any of the provisions contained under any of the acts including the water act, 1974 and the air act, 1981. hence, insisting on such a consent is one without jurisdiction. if such a consent is held to be obtained every year, then collecting ..... . the judgment dated 31.8.2002 passed by the appellate authority is assailed in this writ petition.3. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the water act, 1974 and air act, 1981 do not cover all kinds of discharge or emission of pollutants, but they cover only such discharge or emission of pollutants which are above the prescribed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(3)SCALE354; Supp5SCR249
..... .m. radius of the two reservoirs, which have been granted permission earlier. according to him, these industries are also polluting 'industries. in our view, the environmental (protection) act, 1986 and the water act, 1974 and the air act, 1981 have enough provision applicable not only to new industries proposed to be established but also to existing industries.76. the state of andhra pradesh is therefore ..... dr. siddhu, chairman of the 7th respondent and formerly director general of csir. the affidavit of dr. santappa was produced only before the appellate authority under section 28 of the water act, 1974.49. but, in the light of the subsequent reports now obtained by this court, the position is quite clear. we shall now refer in some detail to the three exhaustive ..... respondent industry, nor to any other industry, from any part of the main go 111 dated 8.3.96. section 19 permitted the state to restrict the application of the water act, 1974 to particular area, if need be, but it did not enable the state to grant exemption to a particular industry within the area prohibited for location of polluting industries. exercise ..... the pre-scrutiny level.29. aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 30.7.97 of the appellant board, the seventh-respondent industry filed appeal under section 28 of the water act, 1974 before the appellate authority. for the first time, in the said appeal, it filed an affidavit of prof. m. santappa, (a former vice chancellor) who was the then scientific officer .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)3GLR447
..... rules which may provide, inter alia, for standards of quality of water under section 6(2)(a) of the said environment (protection) act. under section 16 of the water act, 1974, the main function of the central board is to promote cleanliness of streams, [which includes river, water course, inland water, whether natural or artificial, sub-terrenean waters as defined in clause (j) of section 2], and wells ..... with powers to remove encroachments and to preserve lakes and ponds and do appropriate water management of the water supply sources falling within their areas. the provisions of environment (protection) act, 1986 and the water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974 were referred, to point out that both quantity and quality of water were required to be preserved by the concerned authorities, in the interest of ..... public having an access to the water from lakes and ponds. it was submitted that these authorities were trustees .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009CriLJ211; 2009(2)KarLJ311; 2008(4)KCCR2181; 2008(6)AIRKarR12
..... b. naik, j.1. the accused-petitioners herein are convicted for the offences punishable under sections 25 & 26 of the water act 1974 ('act' for short). accused nos. 2 to 4 being the board of directors/executives of the 1st petitioner company have been sentenced ..... is contravention of section 24 and not sections 25 & 26 therefore, they are liable to be punished under section 43 of the water (prevention and control of pollution) act 1974 and accordingly, set aside the order of conviction passed lay the trial court and remanded the matter back to the trial court.4. ..... direction to frame fresh charge against the accused-petitioners herein for an offence under section 24 of the 'act' which is punishable under section 43 of the water (prevention and control of pollution) act 1974 and to permit the parties to lead fresh evidence if any, if they so choose and dispose of the ..... the charges and accordingly, charge was framed against the accused-petitioners on 05.03.2002 for the offences punishable under sections 25 and 26 of the water pollution act.3. to establish its case, the 'board', apart from examining its regional officer who presented the complaint as pw.1 examined two other witnesses as ..... the 'board' was compelled to instruct its officer to collect the samples in the presence of petitioner no. 3, after drawing a mahazar, sample water of the wells and borewells situated nearby the petitioner company was collected and the same was sent to the government analysis center; the report submitted toy .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1993)2GLR1368
..... 2 2 3 6 5 28 6 56jt. court, rajpipla - - - - - - - - nil - - - - 1 - - - 1bhavnagarj.m.f.c, rajpipla - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - nilkutchc.j.m., bhuj - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - - - - -1_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________name of the air act, 1981 | water act, 1974----------------------------- -- |--------------------------------------court 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 total| 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 total_____________________________________________________________________________________________junagadhc.j.m., junagadh - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 2 3veraval court - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 12nd ..... - - 2jt. j.m.f.c., jetpur- - - - - - - - nil - - - - 1 3 5 1 10j.m.f.c., upleta - - - - - - - - nil - - 2 - - - - - 2j.m.f.c., vankaner - - - - - - - - nil - - 2 - - - - - 2___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________name of the air act, 1981 | water act, 1974----------------------------- -- |---------------------------------------court 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 total| 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 total_______________________________________________________________________________________________sabarkantha - - - - - - - - nil - - - - - - - - nilsuratc.j.m., surat - - 2 17 33 3 3 2 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC812; JT1999(1)SC162; 1999(1)SCALE140; (1999)2SCC718; 1SCR235; 1999(1)LC426(SC)
..... filed by m/s surana oils and derivatives (india) ltd. (hereinafter called the 'respondent company', for implementation of the directions given by the appellate authority under the water (prevention of pollution) act, 1974 (hereinafter called the 'water act, 1974') in favour of the company.5. in other words, the a.p. pollution board is the appellant in five appeals and the speql is appellant in one ..... , filed an affidavit of prof. m. santappa scientific officer to the tamil nadu pollution control board in support of its contentions.15. the appellate authority under section 28 of the water act, 1974 [justice m. ranga reddy, (retd.)] by order dated 5.1.1998 allowed the appeal of the company. before the appellate authority, as already stated, an affidavit was filed by ..... is clear from articles 47, 48-a and 51-a(g) of our constitution and that, in fact, in the various environmental statutes, such as the water act, 1974 and other statutes, including the environment (protection) act, 1986, these concepts are already implied. the learned judge declared that these principles have now become part of our law. the relevant observations in the vellore ..... make available photo copies of the paper books filed in this court or other papers filed in the high court or before the authority under section 28 of the water act, 1974, for the use of the appellate authority.63. the registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the appellate authority under the national environmental appellate authority .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1995)2GLR1210
..... persistent and consistent non-compliance with the various provisions of law by the industry.83. it is represented that the industrial estates were established prior to the enactment of the water act, 1974 and there was no requirement to comply with any pollution norms. this may be so, but most of the industrial units in question have been established thereafter. in any case ..... attended by the indian delegation, led by the then prime minister of india and realising the importance of the prevention and control of pollution of water, the parliament passed the water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974. this act was also applicable to the states, which had passed a requisite resolution under article 252(1) of the constitution, including the state of gujarat. the ..... , with the enactment of the water act, in 1974, the provisions of law, viz., that of the act and the rules framed thereunder, had to be complied with. the units were required to obtain consent from the g.p.c.b. and were under ..... central government to enforce the law. a law, when it is enacted, is either obeyed or complied with voluntarily or it has to be enforced. in the present case, the water act was enacted in 1974 and the legislative assembly of gujarat had passed the requisite resolution under article 252(1) of the constitution. the government, therefore, had accepted the enforcement of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
..... said legal contention urged on behalf of the pollution control board, learned senior counsel sri u.l. bhat for construction co., placing strong reliance upon section 27(2) of the water act, 1974, submitted that the said board may from time to time review any condition imposed to cef under sub-section (1) of section 25 or section 26 of the said section ..... to further justified the order of consent passed by the chairman of the pollution control board as a delegate of the board which is permissible under section 11a of the water act 1974 and further the same is passed after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. therefore it is contended by him that the legal contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are ..... to grant cfe in favour of the construction co.,?(3) whether the review order is passed by the board in compliance with the provisions of section 25)( the water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974 and in compliance of the principles of natural justice?(4) whether the grant of cfe in favour of the construction co., is by the pollution control board ..... respondent to declare that a deemed consent for establishment (cfe for short) as per section 25(7) of the water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as 'the water act') arid to declare that the cfe as per section 25 of the water act is required to be obtained by the construction company only at the stage of issue of occupancy certificate.4 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
..... the directions dated 26.11.1993 of the state board closing down sulphuric acid plant and solvent extraction plant under the provisions of section 33a of the water act, 1974. it was alleged that the action of the state board closing down sulphuric acid plant and solvent extraction plant was arbitrary and highhanded.(ii) that this court ..... iii) that the state board issued directions vide order dated 26.11.1993, for closure of sulphuric acid plant under the provisions of section 33a of the water act, 1974 as it was discharging trade effluent without proper treatment and in excess of the prescribed standards. the district collector udaipur implemented the directions of closure of sulphuric ..... acid and aluminum sulphate. the board granted clearance subject to certain conditions. later 'no-objection certificate' was granted under the water [prevention and control of pollution] act, 1974 [water act] and air (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1981 [air act], again subject to certain conditions. however, this unit changed its product without clearance from the board. instead of sulphuric acid, ..... to 8 had been operating their industrial plants without obtaining consent from the state board, as required under the provisions of the water (prevention control of pollution) act, 1974 and the air (prevention control of pollution) act, 1981 and discharging polluted trade effluent indiscriminately without providing any treatment so as to bring it in conformity to the prescribed standards .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
..... explanation 8 of the eia notification of 1994. further it was pointed out that all projects having environmental implications required previous consent to establish and to operate under the water act, 1974 and air act, 1981 from the state pollution control board and unless those consents are existing, plant cannot said to have all clearances from the state pcbs as required by the explanation ..... it was also pointed out that the above stipulations would be in force amongst others under the water act, 1974, the air act, 1981 and the environment (protection) act, 1986 and the rules thereunder, hazardous wastes (management and handling) rules, 1989 and its rules, the public liability insurance act, 1991 and its amendment. 155. npcil submitted yet another application dated 19.11.2009 for environmental clearance ..... the eia notification of 1994, it was submitted that the project did not obtain all clearances including noc from the state pollution control board, which was required under the water act of 1974 and air act of 1981. project, therefore, did not have noc, from the pollution control board, when 1994 notification came into effect. no fresh environmental clearance was obtained from moef as .....Tag this Judgment!