A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) País/Territorio India Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Mar 15, 1999 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Supreme Court of India Juez Majmudar, S., B.Jagannadha Rao, M. Número de referencia S.O.L. Case No. 53 Idioma Inglés Materia Desechos y sustancias peligrosas, Agua, Medio ambiente gen. Palabra clave Principio de cautela Cuenca/área de captación/cuenca colectora Sustancias peligrosas Zona de conservación de aguas Autorización/permiso EIA Normas sobre calidad del agua Resumen According to the Pollution Control Board, under the notification No. J.20011/15/88-iA, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India dated 27.9.1988, ‘vegetable oils including solved extracted oils’ were listed in the ‘RED’ hazardous category. On 31.3.1994, the Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh prohibited various types of development within 10 km radius of two lakes, Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar, in order to monitor the quality of water in these reservoirs which supplied water to the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. In January 1995, the respondent company was incorporated as public limited company with the object of setting up an industry for production of B.S.S. Castor oil derivatives and purchased 12 acres of land in Peddashpur village. The application of the industry was rejected by the A.P. Pollution Control Board since the proposed site fell within the 10 km radius and such a location was not permissible. The unit was a polluting industry and fell under the red category of polluting industry. The Board opined that it would not be desirable to locate such industry in the catchment area of Himayatsagar. The court examined whether the proposed project would indeed be polluting, and thereby pointed out the difficulties faced by environmental courts in dealing with technological or scientific matters. The Courts did not possess the expertise in all technical and scientific matters of extreme complexity. The Tribunals or the appellate authorities dealing with such matters had to be manned by technical personnel well versed in environmental laws in addition to judicial members. Such defects in the constitution of these bodies could undermine the very purpose of the legislations. It emphasized that widespread toxic pollution was a major threat to essential ecological processes. In this connection it pointed out the importance of the precautionary principle in environmental law. It was appropriate to place the burden of proof on the person or entity proposing the activity that was potentially harmful to the environment. This person was to discharge this burden by showing the absence of a reasonable ecological or medical concern. The result would be that if insufficient evidence was presented by it to alleviate concern about the level of uncertainty, then the presumption should operate in favor of environmental protection. It held that when dealing with environmental matters the Supreme Court and the High Courts could make a reference to the expert bodies/Tribunals having expertise in scientific and technical aspects for investigation and opinion. Any opinion rendered by such bodies would be subject to the approval of the Court. Therefore the Supreme Court referred the following questions to the Appellate Authority under the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997: (a) Is the respondent industry a hazardous one and what is its pollution potentiality, taking into account, the nature of the product, the effluents and its location? (b) Whether the operation of the industry is likely to affect the sensitive catchment area resulting in pollution of the Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes supplying drinking water to the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad? The court, therefore, referred the above issues to the above-said Appellate Authority for its opinion and requested the Authority to give its opinion, as far as possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Texto completo Nation.Deci._Vol_3=prelims.pdf Disponible en UNEP/UNDP/Dutch Government Joint Project on Environmental Law and Institutions in Africa, Compendium of Judicial Decisions on Matters related to Environment, National Decisions, Volume III, Page 96 Referencias Cited by Sujatha vs. A. Prema and others Jurisprudencia | Nacional - corte superior | India | Jun 20, 2005 Palabra clave: Principio de cautela, Contaminación del aire (fuentes fijas), Sustancias peligrosas, Calidad del aire/contaminación del aire, Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council Jurisprudencia | Nacional - corte superior | Australia | Mar 24, 2006 Palabra clave: Principio de cautela, Contaminación electro-magnética, Salud pública, Desarrollo sostenible Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources Policy v. Union of India and Another Jurisprudencia | Nacional - corte superior | India | Ene 5, 2005 Palabra clave: Acuerdo internacional-implementación, Principio contaminador-pagador, Residuos peligrosos, Sustancias peligrosas, Control de la contaminación, Acuerdo internacional-texto, Movimientos transfronterizos de desechos, Hidrocarburos, Responsabilidad/indemnización Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) and Services des espaces verts Ltée/Chemlawn (Appellants) v. Town of Hudson (Respondent) and others Jurisprudencia | Otros | Canadá | Jun 28, 2001 Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. & Ors Jurisprudencia | Nacional - corte superior | India | Feb 23, 2006 Palabra clave: Desarrollo sostenible, Public trust doctrine (doctrina del fideicomiso público), Terrenos urbanos, Manejo de recursos hídricos Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA