9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deemed Consent under Section 25(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 2. Authority of the Board to refuse permission despite deemed consent. 3. Legal and procedural correctness of the orders passed by the Board and the Appellate Authority. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deemed Consent under Section 25(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: The petitioner argued that there was deemed consent by the Board under Section 25(7) of the Act, which states that consent shall be deemed to have been given unconditionally if not given or refused within four months of making an application complete in all respects. The petitioner submitted an application on 27-11-1999, and the Board did not take any action until 9-2-2000, when it requested site inspection coordination. The petitioner responded on 26-2-2000, but no further steps were taken by the Board until the refusal on 9-6-2000, well beyond the four-month period. The court found that the application was complete, and the Board's delay resulted in deemed consent for the petitioner. 2. Authority of the Board to Refuse Permission Despite Deemed Consent: The Board argued that even if deemed consent existed, it could still refuse permission under Section 25 of the Act due to environmental concerns. The court examined the precautionary principle, which places the burden of proof on the developer to show no serious or irreversible damage to the environment. The Board did not provide the petitioner an opportunity to address potential environmental risks. The court noted that the Board's refusal was not based on a detailed assessment of pollutants and their impact, and thus, the refusal was not justified. 3. Legal and Procedural Correctness of the Orders Passed by the Board and the Appellate Authority: The court found procedural lapses in the Board's handling of the petitioner's application. The Board's letter dated 9-2-2000 was not in the prescribed form and did not constitute a notice under Rule 33 of the Rules. The Appellate Authority's finding that the application was incomplete was also incorrect. The court emphasized that the Board's refusal should be based on substantial evidence of non-negligible environmental risk, which was not present in this case. The court also highlighted the principle of sustainable development, noting that the establishment of a hospital is essential for improving human life quality and should be allowed unless there is clear evidence of significant environmental harm. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned orders dated 11-5-2000 and 9-6-2000, passed by the Appellate Authority and the Board, respectively. It directed the Board to conduct a detailed study of potential pollutants and take necessary precautionary measures as provided under Section 25(5) of the Act to ensure no environmental harm from the establishment of the college and hospital.
|
