Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. H.P. State Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board.

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Dec 9, 2009
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Seat of court
Shimla
Judge
Gupta, D.
Ahuja, V.K.
Language
English
Subject
Water, Environment gen.
Keyword
Water quality standards Effluent waste (industrial sources) Effluent waste water/discharge Freshwater quality/freshwater pollution
Abstract
The petitioner/Board is having its Hydel Project situated in Village Shanan at Jogindernagar. It was alleged that H.P. State Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board initially issued one notice, on 29.7.1998, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner's unit was running without the control of the State Pollution Control Board under the provisions of the Water and Air Acts. It was also alleged in the notice that the petitioner's unit was discharging sewage and the petitioner was directed to obtain sanction from the State Pollution Control Board. It was further alleged by the petitioner that since he had been threatened under the provisions of the Act for legal action, he filed a statutory appeal under Section 31 of the Act of 1981 read with Section 28 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Air and Water Acts on 16.10.1999. These appeals were not listed for hearing before any Appellate Authority constituted under the Act and the respondent was issuing similar notices to the petitioner to cause harassment to it. It was further alleged that another notice was issued on 21.9.2004 and the respondent denied their knowledge regarding filing of the appeal by the present petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner was threatened with legal action vide latest notice dated 21.9.2004, he filed a reply and has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing of all the proceedings and action taken by the Pollution Board and they be also restrained from taking further action under the provisions of the Water Act. The scope of Sec 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is not limited to notifying the authorities only when the trade effluent is a polluting agent. Section 2(k) of the Act defines trade effluent to include any liquid, gaseous or solid substance discharged from the premises. Thus Section 2(k) doesn’t require the effluent to be a polluting material. If any liquid, gaseous or solid substance is being discharged from the premises then there is “discharge of trade effluent” within the meaning of Section 2(k). Therefore, any solid, liquid or gaseous discharge from any of the industrial plant’s outlets must be notified, as per Section 25 & 26, to the Pollution Control Board. It is up to the Pollution Control Board to give its consent for discharge only after examining it and finding it suitables. The question as to whether the water being discharged from the unit is causing pollution or not is to be considered subsequently, but all such units are required to take the consent of the Board when they discharge such liquid including water.
Full text
COU-156183.pdf
Website
www.ielrc.org