The Board stated that it was number desirable to locate such an industry in the catchment area in view of GO.
prohibition.
16969/97 already referred to and the P. 11803/98 filed by the respondent industry seeking mandamus against the appellant Board for grant of NOC, were all disposed of by the High Court on 1.5.98, upholding the orders of the appellate authority and directing grant of NOC by the appellant.
At that stage, the Government re affirmed the 10 M. prohibition in GO 111 dated 8.3.96, after obtaining the second interim report of the HMWSSB.
As it is said that the water used companyld be re used for cultivation of lands in the premises of the industry, the toxic chemicals which get lodged in the surface layers of the soil will flow down in storm run offs or percolate into the ground water, to ultimately reach the water body of the two reservoirs.
Aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 30.7.97 of the appellant Board, the seventh respondent industry filed appeal under Section 28 of the Water Act, 1974 before the appellate authority.
Confronted with the above problems, the industry approached the State Government on 24.6.96 seeking exemption from the 10 k.m.
R 1 was rejected by the NEAA.
153 dated 3.7.97 granting exemption from GO 111 dated 8.3.96 on the ground that the Government of India had issued letter of intent on 9.1.96, that the Commissioner of Industries, in his letter dated 6.6.97 opined that there would be numberliquid effluents and that the solid wastes would be disposable.
The said authority visited the site of the industry at Peddashpur village near Hyderabad and submitted a detailed and exhaustive report to this Court, after receiving oral and documentary evidence.
rule companytained in GO.111 dated 8.3.96 on the ground that it had invested huge amounts to establish the industry and that it had almost companypleted the civil works, and had purchased machinery and installed the same.
The State Government, in spite of the prohibitory directions issued by it earlier, issued GO.
Initially, the industry applied for companysent from the appellant Board in November 1995, through the Industries Department of the State Government.
of nickel is companysumed.
Even so, the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the 7th respondent filed under Section 28 of the Water Prevention and Control of pollution Act, 1974 and directed NOC to be issued by the appellant.
The said order had to be passed at one stage by the Board because of the direction of the Government of Andhra Andhra companytained in an order granting exemption from the 10 KM rule.
prohibition rule.
Meanwhile, the Society for Preservation of Environment and Quality Life SPEQL filed W.P. 16969/97 for quashing the exemption order in GO 153 dated 3.7.97 and obtained stay on 25.7.97.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, by letter dated 28.11.95, wrote to the Government of India on 28.11.95, recommending grant of letter of intent in relaxation of 10 K.M. rule, subject to the industry obtaining NOC from the appellant Board.
The NEAA further stated that Dr.Santappa in his evidence as RW 1 made admissions regarding gaseous effluents fly ash, SO CO Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulphur and suspended particulate matter.
Even the solid waste such as activated carbon bleaching earth and sodium sulphate might find entry during rainy season from the storage yard resulting in polluting to lakes.
This Court in its judgment dated 27.1.99 referred the said question to the National Environmental Appellate Authority companystituted under the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997 for its opinion.
The said opinion was in favour of the industry.
from CME .
In fact, after 8.3.96, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued GO 181 dated 7.8.1997 modifying GO 153 dated 3.7.97 and clarifying that the exemption granted did number relate to para 1 of GO 111 but related only to para 3 f , that para being the one which related to the 10 K.m.
The appellate authority referred to Dr. Santappas report which stated that numbere of the bye products would fall on ground and that the companyditions laid down by the Technical Committee of the appellant Board on 16.7.97 would be fulfilled.
On 1.6.97, the appellant Board wrote to the Commissioner of Industries that the industry would be generating nickel catalyst and other pollutants which companyld find their way to the lakes either directly or indirectly.
On 25.6.97, the appellant Board once again rejected the application of the industry inasmuch as the said industry was in the Red list annexed to the Notification dated 1.2.89 of the Ministry of Forests Environment, Government of India.
12 HSA and kgs.
Even though, on 31.5.96 the Commissioner of Industries, specifically informed the industry that it should better select an alternative site, instead of heeding to the said advice, the industry obtained permission of the District Collector on 7.9.96 for change of land use from agricultural to number agricultural use.
Undeterred, the industry proceeded to obtain permission from the Gram Panchayat on 31.5.96 for establishing a factory.
The solid and liquid effluents companyld reach the lakes through seepage.
The Government then directed the Board to prescribe companyditions for treatment disposal of aqueous solid waste.
One of the bye products mentioned in the said application was Glycerine, spent bleaching earth and carbon and spent nickel catalysts.
On 30.7.97, it finally rejected the application for NOC relying upon GO 111 dated 8.3.96 and also upon the Government of Indias numberification dated 1.2.89 which showed this type of industry in its Red list.
The appellant Board stuck to its decision to refuse NOC.
The said writ petition and the writ petition of SPEQL WP.
When the matter was thereafter heard, the seventh respondent industry relied upon an order passed by the appellant Board on 16.7.97, suggesting that if certain safeguards were provided by the industry to prevent pollution, NOC companyld be granted.
Compelled by the above direction, the appellant Board passed an order on 16.7.97 requiring various precautions to be taken by the industry.
The Report went against the seventh respondent industry.
It relied on the affidavit of Prof.M.Shantappa to the affect that the industry had adopted the latest technology which was eco friendly and that the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the industry was Dr.Siddhu, formerly Director General of CSIR, that the technology was obtained by the industry from the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad IICT which issued certificate that the industry will number discharge any acidic effluents and solid wastes, and that they companyld be companylected in M.S.Drums mechanically.
For the first time, in the said appeal, it filed an affidavit of Prof. M. Santappa, a former Vice Chancellor who was the then Scientific Officer of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
On 9.1.96, Government of India gave letter of intent but required the industry to obtain No Objection Certificate from the environmental authority of the State.
It then proceeded to execute various civil works in spite of the 10 k.m.
There would be numberliquid effluents or acidic fumes as certified by IICT.
Thereafter, Dr. Bhowmick submitted his Report dated 16.8.2000 together with a report of June 2000 furnished by the NGRI, Hyderabad.
Government then granted exemption stating as follows The Government had companysidered the matter in its entirety and feel that if proper companytrol over treatment of aqueous and solid wastes is exercised, then there can be numberobjection to setting up of the industry under reference at the proposed site.
Every day 55 kgs.
Monthly turn out of effluents will be 400 MT.
It was stated in the said order of this Court that Prof. Bhowmick companyld take the assistance of the National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad hereinafter called the NGRI .
It held that the categorisation into Red as made by the Government of India on 1.2.89 was applicable only to the industries set up in the Doon valley.
By order dated 5.1.98, the appellate authority presided over by a retired Judge of the A.P. High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Board.
111 dated 8.3.96.
In spite of the said opinion of the appellant Board, the Commissioner of industries, in his letter dated 6.6.97 stated that there would be numberliquid effluent or acidic fumes and that the limited aqueous effluent was totally bio degradable and the solid wastes were disposable.
The industry filed objections to the said Report.
There was numberpossibility of seepage into the reservoirs.
Writ petition 2215/98 was a PIL case filed for quashing the order dated 5.1.98 of the appellate authority.
The appellate authority also held that principle of promissory estoppel applied inasmuch as permission for change of land use was given and permission to erect factory was also given.
It also referred to the fact that earlier the Board had already rejected the NOC on 24.5.96 at the pre scrutiny level.
The present appeals have arisen out of the said judgment.
The NEAA also referred to the Report of the three man Technical Committee of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board companysisting of Dr. J.M. Dave PW 3 and that accidents and human failure are the most probable causes for spillage and it is unrealistic to give a zero spillage, and specially to their report on nickel and held that the respondent industry has high pollution potentiality under issue a ii .
Consequent thereto, in the pre scrutiny by the Single Window Clearance Committee Meeting of the Pollution Control Board held on 24.5.96, the application of the industry stood rejected because of the 10 K.M. prohibition.
Thereafter, the Industry proceeded further with companystruction of civil works and then applied to the appellant Board on 7.4.97 under Section 25 of the Water Act for permission to establish the factory.
The nearest spread would be 8.5 Kms.
of the reservoirs, the seventh respondent industry purchased land of 12 acres on 26.9.95 in Peddashpur village situated on the outskirts of Hyderabad, within 10 KM of the reservoirs.
The factory cannot be located in the catchment area because run offs due to rain will carry hazardous material along surface and through seepage.
