1996 Supreme(All) 1443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PALOK BASU, R. K. MAHAJAN, JJ.
SRI DURGA GLASS WORKS, FIROZABAD - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 15872 Of 1993
Decided On : 12/19/1996
Arun Prakash, H.N.Tripathi, U.N.Sharma
The glass industry falls under the purview of Schedule I of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, as a specified industry liable to pay cess, even if no water is directly consumed in the manufacturing process.
Headnote:
WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) CESS ACT, 1977 - SECTION 2(C), 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13 - SCHEDULE I, II - CESS LEVY - GLASS INDUSTRY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - SCOPE OF CESS LEVY - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - FUNDAMENTAL DUTY - ARTICLE 21, 51-A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974 - AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981 - ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT, 1986 - POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - STRICT OR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, glass industry owners, challenged the levy of cess under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, arguing that the glass industry was not specified in Schedule I of the Act and that no water was consumed in the manufacturing process. The respondents, the pollution board, contended that the glass industry fell under the purview of Schedule I as a specified industry and was liable to pay cess.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the glass industry was covered under Schedule I, Item No. 7 (8) of the Cess Act, as a non-ferrous metallurgical industry. The court reasoned that the legislature intended to prevent pollution in the process of glass formation, even if no water was directly consumed. The court also held that the cess was meant for the prevention and control of pollution and that the glass industry, like any other industry, consumed water in some form.
Issues: 1. Whether the glass industry falls under the purview of Schedule I of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, as a specified industry liable to pay cess. 2. Whether the levy of cess on the glass industry is justified even if no water is directly consumed in the manufacturing process.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the entries in Schedule I of the Cess Act broadly, as a description of the class of industries rather than individual industries. It held that the glass industry fell under Item No. 7 (8) of Schedule I, describing non-ferrous metallurgical industry, as it was not specifically mentioned in the schedule. 2. The court held that the purpose of the Cess Act was to prevent and control pollution, and that the glass industry, like any other industry, consumed water in some form. The court rejected the argument that no water was consumed in the manufacturing process, stating that the melting process of material in the transformation of glass certainly produces fumes by burning process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions filed by the petitioners, upholding the levy of cess on the glass industry under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977.
( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the above two writ petitions as there is a common question of law involved.
( 2 ) SRI Arun Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions, has made a statement at the bar that he does not press the vires of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act. ). The petitioners counsels submission is that the glass industries are not specified in Schedule I as defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act, which runs as under :-"2 (C ). "specified industry" means any industry specified in Schedule I. "therefore, the cess cannot be levied on the glass industry. 2a. The petitioner seeks to quash the recovery orders issued by the competent authority for realisation of amount mentioned in the citations annexure- 1 to Writ Petition No. 15872 of 1993 as well as the impugned judgments and orders dated 18-9-1989 and 8-5-1991, wherein the assessment orders subsequently merged along with recovery certificate dated 27-11-1990 in Writ Petition No. 15261 of 1991.
( 3 ) THE petitioners plea is that the glass industry does not fall under schedule as specified industry and as such, cess cannot be levied. It is further pleaded that since there is no consumption of water at all in the factory, the question of pollution does not arise. The petitioner has further pleaded that in the process of manufacturing of glass, moisture is strictly avoided. The glass is obtained from heating silica and water is considered to be an enemy in the process of manufacturing of glass and as such the question of levying cess does not arise. So much so, the question of pollution does not arise. The petitioner has taken further ground that in the manufacturing of ceramic (Porcelene), the water is to be used and there can be no similarity between ceramic industry and glass industry. Therefore, the glass industry cannot fall under ceramic industry.
( 4 ) THE case of the respondents is that glass falls in ceramic industry as the glass industry comes under the purview of Schedule I of Act No. 36 of 1977 and the petitioner cannot claim exemption. It is further pleaded that the U. P. State gave consent to enact Act No. 36 of 1977 on the resolution by both the Houses of the State Assembly to the Central Government and the Act is applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. This question has not been disputed as it has not been argued. It is also pleaded that glass industry falls within the purview of ceramic industry which is under the schedule and is liable to pay cess to the pollution Board. Dr. H. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even the industry does not fall under ceramic industry, it is covered by item No. 2 of the Schedule. He further submitted that the petitioner should have filed appeal under Section 13 of the Act and non filing of appeal also disentitles the petitioner to the relief claimed. He has relied upon the definition of glass etc. from the encyclopaedia which wouldbe referred lateron.
( 5 ) WE are unable to agree with the submission of Sri Arun Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner on the following lines of reasoning.
( 6 ) I would like first of all to advert the definition of "pollution" mentioned under Section 2 (e) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which is quoted as under :"pollution" means such contamination of water or such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance into water (whether directly or indirectly) as may, or is likely to, create a nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to public health or safety, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses, or to the life and health of animals or plants or of acquatic organisms. "
( 7 ) THE legislature in its wisdom then framed the Water (Prevention and Control of Pol