SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 871

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Assam Real Estate and Infrastructure Developers Association (AREIDA), represented by its President Sri P.K. Sharma - Petitioner 
Versus
The State of Assam, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.869 Of 2016
Decided On : 30-05-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, Mr. T. Kashyap, Advocate, Mr. N. Gautam, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. D. Gogoi, Standing Counsel, Forest, Mr. S. Barua, Standing Counsel, PCB, Mr. P. Nayak, Standing Counsel, GMC.

The court affirmed the Pollution Control Board's authority under the Water Act to require consent for residential constructions over 3000 sq. meters, ensuring compliance for maintaining water quality and preventing pollution.

Headnote:(A) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 25 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Notification mandating prior consent for residential complexes above 3000 sq. meters - Validity challenged - The impugned notifications require consent for construction to prevent water pollution, which is necessary for maintaining water quality and sustainability (Paras 2-5, 11, 30-35).

(B) Fundamental Rights - Right to carry on business - Notification cannot infringe on such rights without legislative backing - The petitioner contended the notifications unlawfully restricted their business operations (Paras 6-7).

(C) Jurisdiction of the Pollution Control Board - Board has authority under the Water Act to impose restrictions regarding sewage disposal from both industrial and domestic establishments (Paras 29-32).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner association challenged notifications mandating prior consent for housing complexes for violations of their business rights, claiming non-applicability concerning residential projects (Paras 3, 5).

Findings of Court:
Notifications issued under Water Act provisions are valid, empowering PCB to impose prior consent requirements to safeguard public resources (Paras 30-35).

Issues: Whether the PCB had the authority to impose restrictions for residential projects under the Water Act (Para 11).

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Power Control Board is competent to impose restrictions under the Water Act equally for domestic and industrial effluents to ensure water quality and sustainability (Paras 29-32).

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to notifications by real estate developers (Para 2 , 3 , 5)
2. the pcb's requirement for prior consent impacts construction based on specified sizes. (Para 4)
3. petitioner's claims against pcb's notifications (Para 6 , 7)
4. respondents' defense of notifications (Para 8 , 9)
5. court's consideration of legal arguments (Para 10 , 11)
6. details of pcb notifications examined (Para 14 , 15)
7. court's interpretation of the water act (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
8. pcb has clear authority under the water act to regulate sewage discharge. (Para 32)
9. court's dismissal of the writ petition (Para 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

(KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.)

Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Kashyap, learned counsel, & Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Forest Department, appearing for respondent No.2, Mr. S. Barua, learned standing counsel, Pollution Control Board, Assam appearing for respondent Nos. 3, and Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) appearing for respondent No.4.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/association is challenging, inter alia, the legality and validity of impugned notification No. WB/G-1025/14-15/01 dated 03.07.2014 and notification No. WB/G-1025/14-15/57 dated 18.05.2015, issued by the Pollution Control Board, Assam (hereinafter referred to as “PCB”), i.e., respondent No.3, whereby it was made mandatory for all ongoing, upcoming, and proposed, inter alia, housing complexes to obtain prior consent from PCB for construction above 3000 sq. meters and for installation/construction of Sewage Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as “STP”), respectively.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the writ petition is being filed by the Assam Real Estate and Infrastructure Developers Association (AREIDA), which is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, representing promoters, developers, and builders of housing/ residential complexes.

4. The PCB, by issuing the impugned notification dated 03.07.2014, necessitated a requirement of prior consent from the Board for constructions above 3000 sq. meters, which includes, among others, all ongoing, upcoming, and proposed housing complexes within the State of Assam, as per the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the “Water Act”), and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Environment Act”), along with Rules made thereunder before commencement of the civil works.

5. Thereafter, the PCB, by notification dated 18.05.2015, stipulated that all existing, ongoing, upcoming, and proposed Industrial Units/Processes/Establishment must obtain prior “Consent to Establish” and “Consent to Operate” from the Board in accordance with Section 25 of the Water Act and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Air Act”) and Rules framed thereunder. The said notification, among other things, also stipulated STP for Housing/Commercial/Office Complexes, etc., having built- up areas above 3000 sq. meters. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 have withheld all building permission/occupancy certificate applications for buildings above 3000 sq. meters, including for residential purposes demanding NOC from the Board as a prerequisite. It is the specific case of the petitioner/association that due to these actions of the respondent authorities, the business/livelihood of people associated with the real estate business has been affected. Situated thus, the present writ petition.

6. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/association, submits that the impugned notifications are violative of Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India and that since the impugned notifications are exec




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top