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

1982 Supreme(Ker) 232

Kerala High Court
M.P.MENON
Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg.(Wvg.) Co.Ltd., Mavoor - Appellant
Versus
Appellate Committee for Water Cess, Trivandrum - Respondent
Decided On : 11/19/1982

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rule-making authority cannot add further conditions beyond what is prescribed by the statute, and statutes should be construed literally unless leading to absurdity.

Headnote:

Water Pollution Cess Act - Challenge to Appellate Authority Orders - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (Central Act 36/77) - S.13 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Central Act 6/74) and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (Central Act 36/77). It highlighted key provisions such as the definition of pollution, powers and functions of the Boards, standards for trade effluents, and the levy and collection of cess for water consumption.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the orders of the appellate authority constituted under S.13 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, and the revised assessment orders. The petitioners, Pulp Division and Staple Fibre Division of the Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co., contested the levy of cess, alleged legal bias in the proceedings of the appellate committee, and argued that the rule denying the benefit of rebate was ultra vires.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Pulp Division's manufacturing process involved large-scale water consumption likely to aggravate water pollution, and thus fell under the 'chemical industry' category specified in the Act. The court rejected the bias claim, stating that the composition of the appellate committee was as per the statute. The court also held that the rule denying rebate was not in line with the legislative intent and directed the assessing authority to pass fresh orders allowing the claim for rebate.

Issues: The issues included the classification of the Pulp Division as a 'specified industry', alleged legal bias in the appellate committee, and the denial of rebate under the Cess Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Acts and Rules, emphasizing that the purpose of the Cess Act was to levy and collect a cess for a special administrative purpose, and the rule-making authority could not add further conditions beyond what was prescribed by the statute. The court also highlighted the principle of literal construction of statutes unless leading to absurdity.

Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the appellate committee and the reassessment orders, directing the assessing authority to pass fresh orders allowing the claim for rebate. The petition was allowed with no costs.

ORDER :-

The challenge in this batch of petitions is to the orders of the appellate authority constituted under S.13 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (Central Act 36/77), and the revised assessment orders passed on their basis. The petitioners who were the appellants before the "appellate committee" are the Pulp Division and Staple Fibre Division of the Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. at Mavoor. The orders passed in appeal are all marked as Ext.P-1, and the revised assessment orders, as Ext.P-2. Three grounds are urged, and they are:-

(i). The Pulp Division is not a "specified industry" within the meaning of Sec.2(c) of the Act, and no cess can consequently be levied in respect of that Division under Sec.3;

(ii). The proceedings of the appellate committee are vitiated by legal bias; and

(iii). Rule 6 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978 relied on by the appellate committee for denying the benefit of rebate to the petitioners is ultra vires.

2. The respondents rely on some of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Central Act 6/74) to sustain the validity of the rule in question. Even otherwise, the levy of cess under Act 36/77 is for augmenting the resources of the Central Board and State Board constituted under Act 6/74. It is therefore necessary to examine the schemes of both the enactments.

3. Act 6/74 (hereinafter called the 'Pollution Act') is an Act for the prevention and control of water pollution and for the establishment of "Boards" for such prevention and control. Pollution is defined in S.2(e), and broadly stated, it means such contamination or alteration of the properties of water, or such discharge of sewage or trade effluent into water, as is likely to create a nuisance, or render such water harmful or injurious to public health. Chapter II of the Act provides for the constitution of a Central Board and State Boards for exercising the powers conferred on them and performing the functions assigned to them. Chapter IV deals with the powers and functions of the Board. S.17 deals with the functions of a State Board, and they include:-

(i) the inspection of trade effluents and works and plants for the treatment of trade effluents, and reviewing of plans, specifications and other data relating to treatment plants, and the system for disposal of trade effluent or other works in connection with the grant of 'consent' under the Act;

(ii) the laying down of standards for trade effluents and for the quality of receiving waters resulting from the discharge of such effluents;

(iii) the laying down of standards of treatment of trade effluent to be discharged into a stream;

and (iv) the making, varying or revoking of orders for the prevention, control or abatement of discharges.

Chapter V contains the key provisions for preventing and controlling water pollution. S.20 in this Chapter empowers a State Board to collect information and data about the flow of water in streams by itself; and also to give directions to persons and establishments consuming water to furnish data. Under S.21, the Board can collect samples of effluents and get them analysed; and under S.22, a copy of the report of the analyst is to be furnished to the occupier of the factory or premises concerned, and another copy is to be retained for use in legal proceedings that may be initiated against him. S.23 empowers any person authorised by the Board to enter any place for performing the functions entrusted to him; he can inspect the place and detect non-compliance with notices, orders or directions of the Board. Plants, records, registers, documents and material objects can be examined if commission of an offence is suspected.

Section 24 provides that no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter (determined in accordance with the standards laid down by the Board) to enter any stream or well; discharge into the stream of any other


























































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