The power conferred on the State Government under Section 19 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, to declare a particular area as a water pollution, prevention, and control area is not arbitrary and unguided, as it is conditioned by the requirement of consultation with the State Board, an expert body entrusted with the task of drafting a comprehensive program for pollution prevention and control.

Headnote:
WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974 - Constitutional validity - Sections 19, 24(1) read with 24(3) - Notification dated December 12, 1978 issued by State Government under Section 19 - Validity - Challenge - Maintainability - Scope of judicial review - Power of State Government to restrict application of Act to certain areas - Consultation with State Board - Requirement - Scope - Arbitrary and unguided discretion - Absence of - Reasonableness of restriction - Fundamental right to carry on trade and business - Balancing of interests - Functions of State Board under Section 17 - Discharge - Effect on prohibition under Section 24 - Standards for effluents - Laying down by State Board - Adoption of standards prescribed by Indian Standards Institute - Legality - Offence under Sections 43 and 44 read with Sections 25 and 26 - Ingredients - Determination - Scope of judicial review.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, running industrial units for dyeing and printing of cloth, challenged the validity of provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Act), and the notification dated December 12, 1978, issued by the State Government under Section 19 of the Act, on various grounds, including violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, unreasonableness, and failure of the State Board to perform its functions under Section 17 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

1. The challenge to the validity of Section 19 of the Act on the ground of conferment of arbitrary and unguided discretion on the State Government in the matter of declaration of an area as water pollution, prevention, and control area was rejected, holding that the power was conditioned by the requirement of consultation with the State Board, an expert body entrusted with the task of drafting a comprehensive program for pollution prevention and control. 2. The notification dated December 12, 1978, issued by the State Government under Section 19, was upheld, finding that the State Board was consulted in the matter of selection of areas declared as water pollution, prevention, and control areas, and that there was sufficient material on record to show that the declaration was made on the advice of the State Board. 3. The challenge to the validity of Section 24(1) read with Section 24(3) of the Act on the ground of conferment of arbitrary and unguided power on the State Government to exempt any person from the operation of Section 24(1) was rejected, holding that the power was not uncontrolled or unguided as it was to be exercised in consonance with the policy of the Legislature and after consultation with or on the recommendation of the State Board. 4. The contention that Section 24(1) imposed an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution was rejected, holding that the restriction was in the interest of general public health and that the Act contained adequate provisions for grant of consent by the State Board and for appeal and revision against its orders, enabling a person to carry on trade or business after obtaining consent. 5. The action taken by the State Board in filing applications under Section 33 of the Act against the petitioners and filing complaints against them under Sections 43 and 44 read with Sections 25 and 26 was upheld, holding that the prohibition contained in Section 24 was not dependent on the discharge of functions by the State Board under Section 17, and that the petitioners had not obtained consent from the State Board under Sections 25 and 26 or set up a treatment plant as required by the consent order. 6. The adoption by the State Board of standards for effluents prescribed by the Indian Standards Institute was held to be legal, as the Institute possessed the necessary expertise for prescribing standards after scientific analysis.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 19, 24(1) read with 24(3) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the notification dated December 12, 1978, issued by the State Government under Section 19, are constitutionally valid. 2. Whether the State Government has arbitrary and unguided discretion in the matter of declaration of an area as water pollution, prevention, and control area under Section 19 of the Act. 3. Whether the State Board was consulted in the matter of selection of areas declared as water pollution, prevention, and control areas under the notification dated December 12, 1978. 4. Whether Section 24(1) of the Act imposes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 5. Whether the action taken by the State Board in filing applications under Section 33 of the Act against the petitioners and filing complaints against them under Sections 43 and 44 read with Sections 25 and 26 is legal. 6. Whether the State Board's adoption of standards for effluents prescribed by the Indian Standards Institute is legal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power conferred on the State Government under Section 19 of the Act to declare a particular area as a water pollution, prevention, and control area is not arbitrary and unguided, as it is conditioned by the requirement of consultation with the State Board, an expert body entrusted with the task of drafting a comprehensive program for pollution prevention and control. 2. The State Board was consulted in the matter of selection of areas declared as water pollution, prevention, and control areas under the notification dated December 12, 1978, as evidenced by the averments in the reply to the writ petitions and the material on record. 3. Section 24(1) of the Act does not impose an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as the restriction is in the interest of general public health and the Act contains adequate provisions for grant of consent by the State Board and for appeal and revision against its orders. 4. The action taken by the State Board in filing applications under Section 33 of the Act against the petitioners and filing complaints against them under Sections 43 and 44 read with Sections 25 and 26 is legal, as the prohibition contained in Section 24 is not dependent on the discharge of functions by the State Board under Section 17, and the petitioners had not obtained consent from the State Board under Sections 25 and 26 or set up a treatment plant as required by the consent order. 5. The State Board's adoption of standards for effluents prescribed by the Indian Standards Institute is legal, as the Institute possesses the necessary expertise for prescribing standards after scientific analysis.
Final Decision: The writ petitions challenging the validity of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the notification dated December 12, 1978, issued by the State Government under Section 19 of the Act, were dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. - These three writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, involve common questions with regard to the validity of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") and are, therefore, disposed of by a common order.

2. The Act, which came into force in the State of Rajasthan on 23rd March, 1974, was enacted by the Parliament with a view to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water. The Act was enacted in accordance with the provisions of Article 252 of the Constitution of India after resolutions in pursuance of Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution had been passed by the houses of the Legislatures of the various states, including the Legislature of State of Rajasthan, to the effect that the matters aforesaid should be regulated in those States by the Parliament by law. Section 3 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Central Board for the prevention and control of water pollution. Section 4 provides for the constitution of the State Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution. Section 16 lays down the functions of the Central Board and the functions of the State Boards set out in Section 17 of the Act. Section 19 empowers the State Government, after consultation with or on the recommendation of the State Board, to issue notifications restricting application of the Act to such area or areas as may be declared tin rein as water pollution, prevention and control area or areas, and after the issue of the said notification, the provisions of the Act would be applicable only to such area or areas. Section 24 prohibits a person from knowingly causing or permitting any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter into any stream or well, and further prohibits a person from knowingly causing or permitting to enter into any stream any other matter which may tend, either directly or in combination with similar matters, to impede the proper flow of the water of the stream in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes of its consequences. Section 25 of the Act enables the State Board to give its consent for the discharge of sewage or trade affluent into a stream or well subject to such condition as it may impose. Section 26 makes the provisions of Section 25 applicable to cases where immediately before the commencement of The Act, any person was discharging any sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well. Section 27 empowers the State Board to review from time to time, any condition imposed under Section 25 or Section 26 and to vary or revoke such condition. Section 28 provides for an appeal to an appellate authority against an order passed be the State Board under Sections 25, 26 or 27 of the Act. Section 29 confers a revisional power on the State Government in relation to orders passed by the State Board under Sections 25, 26 or 27 of the Act. Section 32 enables the State Board to take emergency measures in cases of pollution of stream or well. Section 33 empowers the Board to make an application to a court not inferior to that of Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, for an order restraining the person who is likely to cause pollution of the water in any stream or well by reason of the disposal of any matter therein. Section 41 lays down the punishment for the failure to comply with any direction issued by a court under Section 33 of the Act. Section 43 prescribes the penalty for contravention of the provisions of Section 24; and Section 44 prescribes penalty for contravention of the provisions of Sections 25 and 26.

3. By Central Act No. 44 of 1978, certain amendments were introduced in the Act. Amongst the said amendments was the amendment in Section 4 of the Act, and as a result of the said amendment, the time limit prescribed for constitution of the State

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1981 Supreme(Raj) 243

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHS.C.Agrawal, J.Aggrawal Textiles Industries & Ors. - AppellantsVersusThe State And Ors. - RespondentsS.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1375 of 1980.Decided On : 2-03-1981

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.C.Agrawal, J.
Aggrawal Textiles Industries & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State And Ors. - Respondents
S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1375 of 1980.
Decided On : 2-03-1981