Holding

Environmental disputes involving technical questions may be referred to the National Environmental Appellate Authority for expert opinion, and the two specified issues are so referred.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered appeals filed by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board challenging the High Court's order granting consent to a company to set up a castor‑oil derivatives plant near the Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar catchment areas. The Board argued that the industry fell in the "red" hazardous category and that its location violated a 10‑km restriction intended to protect the lakes supplying drinking water to Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The Court noted the technical complexity of the pollution potential and the need for expert assessment, and held that under Articles 32, 136 and 226 environmental matters may be referred to specialised bodies. Accordingly, it ordered that two specific questions – whether the industry is hazardous and its likely impact on the lakes – be referred to the National Environmental Appellate Authority (NEAA) for a technically informed opinion. The order also directed circulation of the judgment to relevant environmental authorities.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent company qualifies as a hazardous industry under the applicable classifications.
Whether the operation of the plant would affect the catchment area and pollute Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes.

Legislation cited

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Acts. 31
Environment (Protection) Acts. 3(3)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Acts. 25, s. 28

Subjects

environmental lawpollution controlhazardous industryprecautionary principleburden of proofexpert bodiesNational Environmental Appellate AuthorityArticle 21Article 32Article 136Article 226intergenerational equitywater pollutioncatchment areaHimayat SagarOsman Sagar

Judgment

A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD A
v.
PROF. M.V. NAYUDU (RETD.) AND OTHERS

JANUARY 27, 1999

[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNAPHA RAO, JJ.] B

Constitution of India 1950 :

Articles 32, 136 and 226-Environmental Matters-Scientific and Tech-
nical aspects of Environmental matters-Reference to expert bodies by C
Supreme Court and High Courts--Pennissibility of-Held : Supreme Court
and High Courts can refer Scientific and Technical aspects for investigation
and opinion to expert bodies.

Article 21-Life and Liberty--Environme11tal degradation-Held : En-
viro11mental a~pects concem life-Hence, Article 21 attracted. D

Environmental Law :

Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Industrial Pollution
Cases-Judicial intervention-Na tu re, Scope and Limits of-Ex-
plained-Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974-Air
E
(Preventio11 a11d Control of Pollutio11) Act, 1981-Hazardous Wastes
(Ma11ageme11t a11d Handling) Rules, 1989--Enviro11mental (Protection) Act,
1986-National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995, National Environmental
Appellate Authority Act, 1997.
F
The respondent-company was incorporated with the object of setting
up an industry for production of BSS Caster Oil derivatives. The Govern-
ment of India granted a letter of intent, subject to various conditions,
inter-alia to obtain NOC from concerned State Pollution Control Board.
The respondent-company applied to the A.P. Pollution Control Board
(APPCB), seeking clearance to set up the unit. The A.P.P.C.B. rejected the G
application on the ground that the unit was a polluting industry which fell
under the red category of polluting industry under classification of in-
dustries adopted by Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of
India. The company filed an appeal before the appellate authority against
the order of APPCB. H
235
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, and held, that the company
was not a polluting industry and also directed the APPCB to give its
consent for the establishment of the factory. Some writ petitions were filed
before the High Court against the appellate authority's order. The respon-
dent-company also filed writ petition. The High Court dismissed all those
B writ petitions. Hence these appeals.

In the instant appeals, the following questions were formulated for
being referred to the appellate authority under the National Environmen-
tal Appellate Authority Act, 1997 :

C (a) Is the respondent-company a hazardous one and what is its
pollution potentiality, taking into account the nature of the product, the
effiuents 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
D Osman Sagar Lakes supplying drinking water to the twin cities of
Hyderabad and Secunderabad ?

Referring the above questions to the appellate authority and giving
certain .directions, this Court

E HELD : 1.1. Environmental concerns arising in the Supreme Court
under Article 32 or under Article 136 or under Article 226 in the High ·
Courts are of equal importance as human rights concerns. Both are to be .
traced to Article '21 which deals with the fundamental right to life and
liberty; 'While environmental aspects, concern "life", human rights aspects
p concern "liberty". In the context of emerging jurisprudence relating to
environmental matters-as is the case in matters relating to human
rights-it is the duty of this Court to render justice by taking all aspects
into consideration. However, in such cases sometimes, this Court has been
finding sufficient difficulty in providing adequate solutions to meet the
requirements of public interest environmental protection, elimination of
G pollution and sustained development. The monitoring of a case as it
progresses before the professional authority and the consideration of
objections raised by affected parties to the opinion given by these profes-
sional technical bodies have again been creating complex problems. There-
fore, with a view to ensure that there is neither danger to the environment
H nor to the ecology and at the same time ensuring sustainable development,
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.

A judicial and also technical personnel well versed in environmental laws. ....
This court not only contemplated a combination of a judge and technical
experts but also an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Environmental
Court. [254-F; 255-E]
l
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, [1986] 2 SCC 176 and Ve/lore Citizen
B Welfare Forum v. Union of India, [1996] 5 SCC 677, referred to.
~-

23. The Government of India should bring appropriate amendments
in the environmental status, rules and notification to ensure that in all
environmenfal courts, tribunals, and appellate authorities there is always a
Judge of the rank of a High Court or a Supreme Court and Scientist or
c group of Scientists of high _ranking and experience so as to help a proper
and fair adjudication of disputes relating to environment and pollution.
[256-C-D]
[This court directed that copies of the judgment should be communi-
cated to the Secretary, Environment and Forest (Government of India),
D
New Delhi and to the Secretaries of Environment and Forest in all State
Governments and Union Territories and to the Central Pollution Control
Board and ~lso direct the Central Pollution Control Board to communi-
cate a copy of the judgement to all State Pollution Control Boards and
other authorities dealing with environment, pollution ecology and forest
E and wildlife so that appropriate action can be taken expeditiously as
indicated in the judgment. [262-C·E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 368-371
of 1999 Etc.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.98 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. Nos. 17832, 16969, 18681/97 and 2215 of 1998.

R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, Nikhil Nayyar, S.V. Bhatt
and Ms. Urmila Sirur for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 368-371 and 372/99.
G P.S. Narasimha for V.G. Pragasam for the Appellant in C.A. No.
373/99. .._ ;,.

M.N. Rao, K. Ram Kumar, Y. Subha Rao, Ms. Asha G. Nair,
Sridhar, Ms. Santinarayan, A. Subha Rao for the Respondents./State of
H AP.
AP. POLLUTION CONTROLBOARDv. M.V. NAYUDU [JAGANNDHA RAO, J.] 239

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : A
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted in all the special leave
petitions. It is said :

"The basic insight of ecology !s that all living things exist in
interrelated systems; nothing exists in isolation. The world system B
in weblike; to pluck one strand is to cause all to vibrate; whatever
happens to one part has ramifications for all the rest. Our actions
are not individual but social; they reverberate throughout the whole
· ecosystem". [Science Action Coalition by A. Fritsch, Environmental
Ethics : Choices for Concerned Citizens 3-4 (1980) ], (1988) Vol.
12 Harv. Env. L. Rev. at 313)."
c
Four of these appeals which arise out of SLP (C) No. 10317-10320
of 1998 were filed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
dated 1.5.1998 in four writ petitions, namely, W.P. No. 17832 of 1997 and
three other connected writ petitions. All the appeals were filed by the A.P. D
Pollution Control Board. Three of the above writ petitions were filed as
~- public interest cases by certain person~ and the fourth writ petition was
filed by the Gram Panchayat, Peddaspur.

The fifth Civil Appeal which arises out of SLP(C) No. 13380 of 1998
was filed against the judgment in W.P. No. 16969 of 1997 by the Society E
for Preservation of Environment & Quality of Life, (for short 'SPEQL')
represented by Sri P. Janardan Reddi, the petitioner in the said writ
petition. The High Court dismissed all these writ petitions.

The sixth Civil appeal which arises out of SLP (C) No. 10330of1998
was filed by A.P. Pollution Control Board against the order dated 1.5.1998 F
in Writ Petition No. 11803 of 1998. The said writ petition was filed by M/s
Surana Oils and Derivatives (India) Ltd. (hereinafter called the 'respon-
dent company', for implementation of the directions given by the appellate
authority under the Water (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter
called the 'Water Act, 1974') in favour of the company. G
In other words, the A.P. Pollution Board is the appellant in five
appeals and the SPEQL is appellant in one of the appeals.

According to the Pollution Control Board, under the notification No.
J.20011/15/88-iA, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A dated 27.9.1988, 'vegetable oils including solved extracted oils' (Item No.
37) was listed in the 'RED' hazardous category. The Pollution Board
contends that Notification No. J. 120012/38/86 lA, Ministry of Environment
& Forests of Government of India dated 1.2.1989, prohibits the location of
the industry of the type proposed to be established by the respondent
B company, which will fall under categorisation at No. 11 same category of
industry
J
in. Doon
.
Valley.
_;..

On 31.3.1994, based on an Interim Report of the Expert Committee
constituted by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board, the Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Govern-
C ment of Andhra Pradesh issued GOMs 192 dated 31.3.1994 prohibited
various types of development within 10 k.m. radius of the two lakes,
Himayat Sagar & Osman Sagar, in order to monitor the quality of water
in these reservoirs which supply water to the twin cities of Hyderabad and
Secunderabad.

D In January 1995, the respondent company was incorporated as a
public limited company with the object of setting up an industry for
production of B.S.S. Castor oil derivatives such as Hydrogenated Castor .
Oil, 12-Hydroxy Stearic Acid, Dehydrated Castor Oil, Methylated 12-HSA,
D.Co., Fatty Acids with by products - like Glycerine, Spent Bleaching
E Earth and Carbon and Spent Nickel Catalyst. Thereafter the industry
applied to the Ministry of Industries, Government of India for letter of
intent under the Industries (Development Regulation) Act, 1951.

The respondents Company purchased 12 acres of land on 26.9.1995
F in Peddaspur village, Shamshabad Manda!. The Company also applied for
consent for establishment of the industry through the single window
clearance committee of the Commissionerate of Industries, Government of
Andhra Pradesh, in November, 1995. On 28.11.1995, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh, wrote to the Ministry of Industry, Government of India . .
as follows:
G
"The State Government recommends the application of the unit
for grant of letter of intent for the manufacture of B.S.S. Grade
Castor Oil in relaxation of locational restriction subject to NOC
from A.P. Pollution Control Board, prior to taking implementation
H steps."
AP. POLLUTION (;ONTROL BOARD v. M.V. NA YUDU [JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 241

On 9.1.1996, the Government of Indi.a issued letter of intent for manufac- A
't
ture ofB.S.S. grade Castor Oil (15,000 tons per annum) and Glycerine (600
tons per annum). The issuance of licence was subject to various conditions,
inter-alia, as follows :

"(a) you shal.l obtain a confirmation from the State Director of
Industries that the site of the project has been approved from the B
. -} environmental angle by the competent State authority.

(b) you shall obtain a certificate from the concerned State Pollution
Control Board, to the effect that the measures envisaged for pollu-

.
tion control and the equipment proposed to be installed meet their
requirements."
c
Therefore, the respondent company ·had to obtain NOC from the AP.
Pollution Control Board ..

According to the AP. Pollution Control .Board (the appellant), the D
respondent company could not have commenced civil works and construe-
~ tion of its factory, without obtaining the clearance of the AP. Pollution
Control Board - as the relaxation by government from location restriction
as stated in their Jetter dated 28.11.1995, was subject to such clearance. On ·
8.3.1996, on receipt of the 2nd Interim Report of the Expert Committee of
the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, the
E
Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department issued Go
No.111 on 8.3.1996 reiterating the 10. k.m. prohibition as contained in the
GO 192 dated 31.3.1994 but making some concessions in favour of residen-
tial development.
F
In the pre-scrutiny stage on 24.5.1996 by the Single Window
°?'
Clearance Committee, which the company's representative attended, the
application of the industry was rejected by the AP. Pollution Control
Board since the proposed site fell within. 10 k.m. and such a location was
not permissible as per GOMs 111 dated 8.3.96. On 31.5;1994, the Gram
Panchayat approved plans for establishing factory, G

... On 31.3.1996, the Commissionerate of Industries, rejected the loca-
tion and directed alternative site to be selected. On 7.9.1996, the Dt.
Collector granted permission for conversion of the site (i.e. within 10 k.m.)
to be used for non-agricultural purposes. H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A On 7.4.1997, the company applied to the A.P. Pollution Control
Board, seeking clearance to set-up the unit under section 25 of the Water
Act. It may be noted that in the said application, the Company listed the
following as by-products of its processes :

"Glycerine, spent bleaching earth and carbon and spent nickel
B catalysts."

According to the AP Pollution Board the products manufactured by this
industry would lead to the following sources of pollution :

. "(a) Nickel (solid waste) which is heavy-metal and also a hazardous
c waste under Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling)
Rules, 1989.

(b) There is apprehension of discharge or run off from the factory
combined joining oil and other waste products.
D
(c) Emission of Sulpher Dioxide and oxide of nitrogen.

It was at that juncture that the company secured from the Government of
A.P. by GOMs 153 dated 3.7.1997 exemption from the operation of GOMs
111 of 8.3.1996 which prescribed the 10 k.m. rule from the Osman Sagar
E and Himayat Sagar Lakes.

In regard to grant of NOC by the A.P. Pollution Board, the said
Board by letter dated 30.7.1997 rejected the application dated 7.4.1997 for
consent; stating.

F "(1) The unit is a polluting industry and falls under the red category
of polluting industry under section S. No. 11 of the classification
of industries adopted by MOEF, GOI and opined that it would
not be desirable to locate such industry in the catchment area of
Himayatsagar in view of the GOMs No. 111 dated 8.3.1996.
G (2) The proposal to set up this unit was rejected at the pre-scrutiny
level during the meeting of CDCC/DIPC held on 24.5.1996 in view
of the State Government Order No. 111 dated 8.3.1996.'

Aggrieved by the above letter of rejection, the respondent company ap-
H pealed under section 28 of the Water Act. Before the appellate authority,
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) 1 S.C.R.

A authority, some of these public interest cases had already been filed. After +- '---
the 5.1.98 order of the appellate authority, a direction was sought in the
"";.
public interest case W.P. No. 2215 of 1996 that the order dated 5.1.1998
passed by the appellate authority was arbitrary and contrary to interim
orders passed by the High Court in W.P. 17832, 16969 and 16881 of 1997.

B The respondent company, in its turn filed WP No. 11803 of 1998 for
directing the A.P. Pollution Control Board to give its consent, as a conse- ~

quence to the order of the appellate authority dated 5.1.1998.

As stated earlier, the A.P. Pollution Control Board contends that the
categorisation of industries into red, green and orange had already been
c made prior to the notification of 1.2.1989 by Office Memorandum of the
Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India dated 27.9.1988
and that in that notification also

'Vegetable oils including solvent extracted oils" (Item No. 7) and
D 'Vanaspati Hydrogenated Vegetable oils for industrial purposes
(Item 37)"
~
;
were also included in the red category. It also contends that the company
could not have started civil works unless NOC was given by the Board.

E The Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated 1.5.1998,
held that the writ petitioners who filed the public interest cases could not
be said to be having no locus standi to file the writ petitions. The High
Court observed that while the Technical Committee of the A.P. Pollution
Control Board had, some time before its refusal, suggested certain
F safeguards to· be followed by the company, the Board could not have l
suddenly refused the consent and that this showed double standards. The '
• "
:-
High Court referred to the order of the Appellate authority under Section
28 of the Water Act dated 5.1.98 and the report of Dr. Sidhu, to the effect
that even if hazardous waste was a by- product, the same could be control-
led if the safeguards mentioned in the Hazardous Wastes (Management
G and handling) Rules, 1989 were followed and in particular those in Rules
5, 6 and 11, were taken. The Rules made under manufacture, Storage and
:;.
Import of Hazardous Chemical (MSIHC) Rules 1989 also permit industrial
actively provided the safeguards mentioned therein are taken. The Chemi-
cal Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response) Rules
H 1991 supplement the MSIHC Rules, 1989 on accident preparedness and
~

-
,-
"

AP. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. M. V. NAYUDU (JAGANNADHA RAO, J.j 245

- -;.
envisage a 4-tier crisis management system in the country. Therefore,
merely because an industry produced hazardous substances, the consent
could not be refused. It was stated that as the matter was highly technical,
A

i11teifere11ce was not called for, as "rightly" contended by the learned counsel
for the respondent company. The High Court could not sit in appeal over
the order of the appellate authority. For the above reasons, the High Court
dismissed the three pul:>lic interest cases, and the writ petitions filed by the
B
-i
Gram Panchayat. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the
respondent industry and directed grant of consent by the A.P. Pollution
Control Board subject to such conditions as might be imposed by the
Board. It is against the said judgment that the A.P. Pollution Control Board
has filed the five appeals. One appeal is filed by SPEQL. c
In these appeals, we have heard the preliminary submission of Shri
R.N. Trivedi, learned Additional Solicitor Gen'!ral for the A.P. Pollution
Control Board, Shri M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondent
company, and Sri P.S. Narasimha for the appellant in the appeal arising
out of SLP (C) No. 13380 of 1998 and others. D
....
It will be noticed that various issues arise in these appeals concerning
the validity of the orders passed by A.P. Pollution Control Board dated
30.7.97, the correctness of the order dated 5.1.98 of the Appellate
Authority under Section 28 of the Water Act, the validity of GOMs No. E
153 dated 3.7.97 by which Government of AP. granted exemption for the
operation of the 10 k.m. rule in GOMs 111 dated 8.3.1996. Questions also
arise regarding the alleged breach of the provisions of the Act, Rules or
notification issued by the Central Government and the standards
prescribed under the Water Act or rules or notifications. Question also
F
arises whether the "appellate" authority could have said that as it was a
"" highly technical matter, no interference was called for. We are just now not
going into all these aspects but are confining ourselves to the issues on the
technological side.

In matters regarding industrial pollution and in particular, in relation G
.. to the alleged breach of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, its rules or notifications issued thereunder,
serious issues involving pollution and related technology have been arising
in appeals under Article 136 and in writ petitions under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India filed in this Court and also in writ petitions before H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.
A High Courts under Article 226. The cases involve the correctness of +"
opinions on technological aspects expressed by the Pollution Control .....
Boards or other bodies whose opinions are placed before the Courts. In
such a situation, considerable difficulty is experienced by this Court or the
High Courts in adjudicating upon the correctness of the technological and
scientific opinions presented to the Courts or in regard to the efficacy of
B
the technology proposed to be adopted by the industry or in regard to the _.
need for alternative technology or modifications as suggested by the Pol-
lution Control Board or other bodies. The present case illustrates such
problems. It has become, therefore, necessary to refer to certain aspects
of environmental law already decided by this Court and also to go into the
c above scientific problems, at some length and find solutions for the same.

Enviro11me11t Courts/Tribu11als - problems of complex tech11ology :

The difficulty faced by environmental courts in dealing with highly
technological or scientific data appears to be a global phenomenon.
D
Lord Woolf, in his Garner lecture to UKELA, on the theme "Are ~

the Judiciary Environmentally Myopic?" (See 1992 J.Envtl. Law Vol. 4,
No.1, Pl) commented upon the problem of increasing specialisation in
environmental law and on the difficulty of the Courts, in their present form,
moving beyond their traditional role of detached "Wed11esbury" review. He
E
pointed out the need for a Court or Tribunal.

"having a general responsibility for overseeing and enforcing
the safeguards provided for the protection of the environment .......
The Tribunal could be granted a wider discretion to determine its
F procedure so that it was able to bring to bear its specialist ex-
perie11ce of environmental issues in the most effective way".
...

Lord Woolf pointed out the need for :

"a multi-faceted, multi-skilled body which would combine the ser-
G vices provided by existing Courts, Tribunals and Inspectors in the
environmental field. It would be a 'one stop shop', which should
lead to faster, cheaper and the more effective resolution of disputes
in the environmental area. It would avoid increasing the load on
already over burdened lay institutions by trying to compel them to
H resolve issues with which they are .not designed to deal. It could
A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. M.V. NAYUDU [JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 247

be a forum in which the Judges could play a different role. A role A

- ..... which enabled them not to examine environmental problems with
limited vision. It coul<;I however be based on our existing ex-
perience, combining the skills of the existing inspectorate, the Land
Tribunal and other administrative bodies. It could be an exciting
project".
B
According to Lord Woolf, ''while environmental law is now clearly a
permanent feature of the legal scene, it still lacks clear boundaries." It
might be 'preferable that the boundaries are left to be established by
Judicial decision as the law developed. After all, the great strength of the
English Law has been its pragmatic approach". Further, where urgent c
decisions are required, there are often no easy options for preserving the
status quo pending the resolution of the dispute. If the project is allowed
to go ahead, there may be irreperable damage to the environment; if it is
stopped, there may be irreperable damage to an important economic
interest. (See Enviro11me11t E11forceme11t : T71e need for a specialised cowt -
by Robert Cranworth QC (Jour of Planning & Environment, 1992 p. 798
D
at 806). Robert Cranworth advocates the constitution of a unified tribunal
with a simple procedure which looks to the need of customers, which takes
the form of a Court or an expert panel, the allocation of a procedure
adopted to the needs of each case - which would operate at two levels -
first tier by a single Judge or technical person and a review by a panel of E
experts presided over by a High Court Judge - and not limited to
'Wednesbury' grounds.

In the USA the position is not different. It is accepted that when the
adversary process yields conflicting testimony. on complicated and un- F
familiar issues and the participants cannot fully understand the nature of
the dispute, Colµ'ts may not be competent to make reasoned and principled
decisions.· Concern over this problem led the Carnegie Commission of
Science & Technology (1993) and the Government to undertake a study of
the problems of science and technology in Judicial decision making. In the
introduction to its final report, the Commission concluded : G

~ ~
"The Courts' ability to handle complex science- rich cases has
recently been called into - question, with widespread allegations
that the Judicial system is increasingly unable to manage and
adjudicate science. and technology (S&T) issues. Critics have ob- H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.
A 'jected that Judges cannot make appropriate decisions because they
lack technical training, that the Jurors do not comprehend the +-
complexity of the evidence they are supposed to analyze, and that "C:

the expert witnesses on whom the system relies are merceneries
whose biased testimony frequently produces erroneous and incon-
sistent determinations. If these claims go unanswered, or are not
B
dealt with, confidence in the Judiciary will be undermined as the
public becomes convinced that the Cowts as now constituted are ~

incapable of correctly resolving some of the more pressing legal
· issues of our day."

c The uncertain nature of scientific opinions :
In the environment field, the uncertainty of scientific opinions has
created serious problems for the courts. In regard to the different goals of
science and the law in the ascertainment of truth, the U.S. Supreme Court
observed in Daubert v. Meml Dow Phannaceuticals Inc., (1993) 113 S. Ct.
D 2786, as follows :

. "........ there are important differences between the quest for truth ~
in the Court-room and the quest for truth in the laboratory.
. Scientific conclusions are subject to pe1petual revision. Law, on the
. other hand, must resolve disputes finally and quickly."
E
It has also been stated by Brian Wynne in 'Uncertainity and Environ-
mental learning, (2. Global Envtl. Change 111) (1992) :

"Uncertainity, resulting from inadequate date, ignorance and in-
F determinacy, is an inherent part of science."

Uncertainity becomes a problem when scientifie knowledge is in-
stitutionalised in policy making or used as a basis for decision-making by
agencies· and courts. Scientists may refine, modify or discard variables or
models when more information is available; however, agencies and Courts
G must make choices based on existing scientific knowledge. In addition,
agency decision making evidence is generally presented in a scientific form
that cannot be easily tested. Therefore, inadequacies in the record due to :.. e:
uncertainity or insufficient knowledge may not be properly considered.
(The Status of the precautionary Principle in Australia : by Charmian Barton
H (Vol. 22) (1988) (Harv. Envtt. Law Review p. 509 at pp 510-511).
AP. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. M.V. NA YUDU (JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 249

.... The inadequacies of science result from identification of adverse A
effects of a hazard and then working backwards to find the causes. Second-
-=- ly, clinical tests are performed, particularly where toxins are involved, on
animals and not on humans, that is to say, are based on animals studies or
short-term cell testing. Thirdly conclusions based on epidemiological
studies are flawed by the scientist's inability to control or even accurately B
assess past exposure of the subjects. Moreover, these studies do not permit
the scientist to isolate the effects of the substance of concern. The latency
period of many carcinogens and other toxins exacerbates problems of later
interpretation. The timing between exposure and observable effect creates
intolerable delays before regulation occurs. (See Scientific Uncertainity in
Protective Environmental Decision making - by Alyson C. Flournay (Vol.
c
15) 1991 Harv. Envtt. Law Review P.327 at 333-335).

It is the above uncertainity of science in the environmental context,
that has led International Conferences to formulate new legal theories and
rules of evidence. We shall presently refer to them. D

171e Precautionary Principle and the new Burden of Proof - 171e Vellore
Case:

The 'uncertainity' of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from
E
time to time has led to great changes in environmental concepts during the
period between the Stockholm Conference of 1972 and the Rio Conference
of 1992. In Ve/lore Citizens' Welfare Fornm v. Union of India and Others,
(1996) 5 SCC 647, a three Judge Bench of this Court referred to these
changes, to the 'precautionary principle' and the new concept of 'burden
of proof in environmental matters. Kuldip Singh, J. after referring to the F
principles evolved in various international Conferences and to the concept
of 'Sustainable Development', stated that the precautionary Principle, the
Polluter-Pays Principle and the special concept of Onus of Proof have now
emerged and govern the law in our country too, as is clear from Articles
47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of our Constitution and that, in fact, in the various G
environmental statutes, such as the Water Act, 1974 and other statutes,
... including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, these concepts are
already implied. The learned Judge declared that these principles have now
become part of our law. The relevant observations in the Vellore case in
this behalf read as follows : H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A "In view of the above-mentioned constitutional and statutory
provisions we have no hesitation in holding that the Precautio1•01y ··, _,.
Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle are part of the environ-
mental law of the country."
...
-
The Court observed that even otherwise the above-said principles are
B accepted_· as part of the Customary International Law and hence there
should be no difficulty in accepting them as part of our domestic law. In
fact on the facts of the case before this Court, it was directed that the
authority to be appointed under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protec-
tion) Act, 1986.
c
"shall implement the 'Precautionary Principle' and the 'Polluter
Pays Principle'."

The learned Judges also observed that the new concept which places the
Burden of Proof on the Developer or Industrialist who is proposing to alter
D the status quo, has also become part of our environmental law.

The Ve/lore judgment has referred to these principles briefly but, in
our view, it is necessary to explain their meaning in more detail,· so that
Courts and tribunals or environmental authorities can properly apply the
E said principles in the matters which come before them.

The precautionary Principle replaces the Assimilative Capacity principle :

A basic shift in the approach to environmental protection occurred
initially between 1972 and 1982. Earlier the concept was based on the
F 'assimilative capacity' rule as revealed from Principle 6 of the Stockholm
Declaration of the U.N. Conference on Human Environment, 1972. The
said principle assumed that science could provide policy-makers with the
information and means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity
of the environment to assimilate impacts and it presumed that relevant
G technical expertise would be available when environmental harm was
predicted and there would be sufficient time to act in order to avoid such
harm. But in the 11th principle of the U.N. General Assembly Resolution .
on World Charter. for Nature, l98Z, the emphasis shifted to the 'precau-
tionary Principle', and this was reite;ated in the Rio Conference of 1992 in
H its Principle 15 which reads as follows :
AP. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. M. V. NA YUDU fJAGANNADHA RAO. J.] 251

.... "P1i11ciple 15 : In order to protect the environment, the precaution- A
ary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their
capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage; lack of full scientific ce1tainity shall not be used as a reason
for proposing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation."
B
... In regard to the cause for the emergence of this principle, Charmian
Barton, in the article earlier referred to in Vol. 22, Harv. Envtt. L. Rev.
(1998) P. 509 at (p. 547) says :

"There is nothing to prevent decision makers from assessing the c
record and concluding there is inadequate information on which
to reach a determination. If it is not possible to make a decision
with "some" confidence, then it makes sense to e" on the side of
caution and prevellt activities that may cause serious or irreversible
harm. An informed decision can be made at a later stage when
additional data is available or resources permit further research. D
To ensure that greater caution is taken in environmental manage-
ment, implementation of the principle through Judicial and legis-
lative means is necessary."

In other words, inadequacies of science is the real basis that has led to the E
precautionary principle of 1982. It is based on the theory that it is better
to err on the side of caution and prevent environmental harm which may
indeed become irreversible.

The principle of precaution involves the anticipation of environmen-
ta! harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environ- F
mentally harmful activity. It is based on scientific uncertainity.
Environmental protection should not only aim at protecting health, proper-
ty and economic interest but also protect the environment for its own sake.
Precautionary duties must not only be triggered by the suspicion of con-
crete danger but also by (Justified) concern or risk potential. The precau-
tionary principle was recommended by the UNEP Governing Council
G
(1989). The Bomako Convention also lowered the threshold at which
..... scientific evidence might require action by not referring to "serious" or
"irreversible" as adjectives qualifying harm. However, summing up the legal
status of the precautionary principle, one commentator characterised the
principle as still "evolving" for though it is accepted as part of the interna- H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.

A tional customary law, "the consequences of its application in any potential
situation will be influenced by the circumstances of each case". (See First
Report of Dr. Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju*, Special - Rapporteur, Interna-
tional Law Commission dated 3.4.1998 paras 61 to 72).

The Special Burden of Proof i11 E11vironme11tal cases :
B
We shall next elaborate the new concept of burden of proof referred
to in the Vellore case at p. 658 [1996] 5 SCC 647). In that case, Kuldip
Singh, J. stated as follows :

"The 'onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialist
c to show that his action is environmentally benign."

It is to be noticed that while the inadequacies of science have led to
the 'precautionary principle', the said 'precautionary principle' in its turn,
has led to the special principle of burden of proof in environmental cases
where burden as to the absence of injurious effect of the actions proposed,
D - is pla~ed on those who want to change the status quo (Wynne, U11certainity
and Environmental Leaming, 2 Global Envtl. Change 111 (1992) at p. 123).
This is often termed as a reversal of the burden of proof, because otherwise
in environmental cases, those opposing the changes would be compelled to
shoulder the evidentiary burden, a procedure which is not fair. Therefore,
E it is necessary that the party attempting to preserve the status quo by
maintaining a less-polluted state should not carry the burden of proof and
the party who wants to alter it, must bear this burden. (See James M. Olson,
Shifting the Burden of Proof, 20 Envtl. Law p.891 at 898 (1990). (Quoted in
Vol. 22 (1998) Harv. Env. Law Review p. 509 at 519, 550).

F The precautionary principle suggests that where there is an identifi-
able risk of serious or irreversible harm, including, for example, extinction
of species, widespread toxic pollution in major threats to essential ecologi-
cal processes, it may be appropriate to place the burden of proof on the
person or, entity proposing the activity that is potentially harmful to the
environment. (See Report of Dr. Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju, Special Rap-
G porteur, Intemational Law Commission, dated 3.4.1998, para 61).

It is· also explained that if the environmental risks being run by
regulatory inaction are in some way "uncertain but non-negligible", then
regulatory action is justified. This will lead to the question as to what is the
H • Joint Secretary and Legal Adviser, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi.
AP. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. M V. NA YUDU (JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 253

non-negligible risk'. In such a situation, the burden of proof is to be placed A
. on those attempting to alter the status quo. They are to discharge this
burden by showing the absence of a 'reasonable ecological or medical
concern. That is the required standard of proof The result would be that
if insufficient evidence is presented by them to alleviate concern about the
level of uncertainity, then the presumption should operate in favour of
environmental protection. Such a presumption has been applied inAshbur-
B
ton Acclimatisation' Society v. Federated Famiers of New Zealand, [1988] 1
NZLR 78. The required standard now is that the risk of harm to the
environment or to hum~n health is to be decided in public interest, accord-
ing to a 'reasonable persons' test. (See Precautionary Principle in Australia
by Charmian Barton) (Vol. 22) (1988) Harv. Env. L. Rev. 509 at 549). C

Blief Swvey of Judicial and technical inputs in environmental appellate
autholities/tribunals :

We propose to briefly examine the deficiencies in the Judicial and D
technical inputs in the appellate system under some of our existing environ-
mental laws.

Different statutes in our country relating to environment provide
appeals to appellate authorities. But most of them still fall short of a
combination of judicial and scientific needs. For example, the qualifications E
of the persons to be appointed as appellate authorities under section 28 of
the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, section 31 of
the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, under Rule 12 of
the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 are not
clearly spelled out. While the appellate authority under section 28 in F
Andhra Pradesh as per the notification of the Andhra Pradesh Govern-
ment is a retired High Court Judge and there is nobody on his panel to
help him in technical matters, the same authority as per the notification in
Delhi is the Financial Commissioner (see notification dated 18.2.1992)
resulting in there being in NCT neither a regular judicial member nor a
technical one. Again, under the National Environmental Tribunal Act, G
1995, which has power to award compensation for death or injury to any
person (other than workmen), the said Tribunal Under section 10 no doubt
consists of a Chairman who could be a Judge or retired Judge of the
Supreme or High Court and a Technical Member. But section lO(l)(b)
read with section 10(2)(b) or (c) permits a Secretary to Government or H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.

A Additional Secretary who has been a Vice-Chairman for 2 years to be
appointed as Chairman. We are citing the above as instances of the grave
inadequacies.

Principle of Good Govemance : Need for modification of our statutes, mies
and notification by including adequate Judicial & Scientific inputs :
B
. Good Governance is an accepted principle of international and
domestic law. It comprises of the rule of law, effective State institutions,
transparency and accountability in public affairs, respect for human rights
and the meaningful participation of citizens - (including scientists) - in the
C political processes of their countries and in decisions affecting their lives.
(Report of the Secretary General on the work of the Organization, Official
records of the UN General Assembly, 52 session, suppl. I (A/52/1) (para
22), It includes the need for the State to take the necessary legislative,
administrative and other action's to implement the duty of prevention of
environmental harm, as noted in Article 7 of the draft approved by the
D working Group of the International Law Commission in 1996. (See Report
of Dr. Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju, Special Rapporteur of the International
Law Commission dated 3.4.1998 on 'Prevention of transboundary damage
from hazardous activities') (paras 103, 104). Of paramount importance, in
the establishment of Environmental Courts, Authorities and Tribunals is
E the need for providing adequate Judicial and Scientific inputs rather than
leave complicated disputes regarding environmental pollution to officers
drawn only from the Executive.

It appears to us from what has been stated earlier that things are not
quite satisfactory and there is an urgent need to make appropriate amend-
F ments so as to ensure that at all times, the appellate authorities or tribunals
consist of Judicial and also Technical personnel well versed i n environ-
mental laws. Such defects in the constitution of these bodies can certainly
undermine the very purpose of those legislations. We have already referred
to the extreme complexity of the scientific or technological issues that arise
G in environmental matters. Nor, as pointed out by Lord Woolf and Robert
Cranworth should the appellate bodies be restricted to Wednesbury limita-
tions.

The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales in Australia.
established in 1980, could be the ideal. It is a superior Court of Record and
H is composed of four Judges and nine technical and conciliation assessors. Its
AP. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. M.V. NAYUDU (JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 255

~ jurisdiction combines appeal, judicial review and enforcement functions. A
Such a composition in our opinion is necessary and ideal in environmental
matters.

In fact, such an Environmental Court was envisaged by this Court
atleast in two judgments. As long back as 1986, Bhagwati, CJ in M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India and Shriram Foods & Fertilizers Case [1986] 2 SCC 176 B
(at page 202) observed :

'We would also suggest to the Government of India that since cases
involving issues of environmental pollution, ecological destructions
and conflicts over national resources are increasingly coming up C
for adjudication and these cases involve assessment and evolution
of scientific and technical data, it might be desirable to set up
Environmental Courts on the regional basis with one professional
Judge and two experts drawn from the Ecological Sciences Research
Group keeping in view the nature cf the case and the expertise
required for its adjudication. There would of course. be a right of D
appeal to this Court from the decision of the Environme'nt Court."

In other words, this Court not only contemplated a combination of a Judge
and Technical Experts but also an appeal to the Supreme Court from the
Environmental Court.
E
Similarly, in the Ve/lore case (1996) 5 SCC 647, while criticising the
inaction on the part of the Government of India in the appointment of an
authority under section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1996.
Kuldip Singh, J. observed that the Central Government should constitute
an authority under section 3(3) : F

"headed by a retired Judge of the High Court and it may have other
members - preferably with expertise in the field of pollution control
and environmental protection - .to be appointed. by the Central
Government."
G
We have tried to find out the result of the said directions. We have noticed
that pursuant to the observations of this Court in Ve/lore case, certain
notifications have been issued by including a High Court Judge in the said
authority. In the Notification So. 671(E) dated 30.9.1996 issued by the
· Government of India for the State of Tamil Nadu under section 3(3) of the H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) 1 S.C.R.
,
~
A 1986 Act, appointing a 'Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payment of
Compensation)' Authority, it is stated that it shall be manned by a retired
High Court Judge and other technical men1bers who would frame a scheme
or schemes in consultation with NEERI etc. It could deal with all industries
including tanning industries. A similar Notification So. 704 E dated
9.10.1996 was issued for the 'Environmental Impact Assessment Authority'
B for the NCT including a High Court Judge. Notification dated 6:2.1997 .':
(No. 88E) under section 3(3) of the 1986 Act dealing with shrimp industry,
of course, includes a retired High Court Judge and technical persons.

As stated earlier, the Government of India should, in our opinion
c bring about appropriate amendments in the environmental statutes, Rules
and notification to ensure that in all Environmental Courts, Tribunals and
appellate authorities there is always a Judge of the rank of a High Court
Judge or a Supreme Court Judge. - sitting or retired - and Scientist or
group of Scientists of high ranking and experience so as to help a proper
and fair adjudication of disputes relating to environment and pollution.
D
There is also an immediate need that in all the States and Union
Territories, the appellate authorities under Section 28 of the Water
(Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1974 and section 31 of the Air (Prevention
of Pollution) Act, 1981 or other rules there is always a Judge of the High
E Court, sitting or retired and a Scientist or group of Scientists of high
ranking and experience, to help in the adjudication of disputes relating to
environment and pollution. An amendment to existing notifications under
these Acts can be made for the present.

There is also need for amending the notifications issued under Rule
F 12 of the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989. What
we have said applies to all other such Rules or notifications issued either
by the Central Government or the State Governments.

We request the Central and State Governments to take notice of
these recommendations and take appropriate action urgently.
G
We finally come to the appellate authority under the National En-
vironment Appellate Authority Act, 1997. In our view it comes very near
•
to the ideals set by this Court. Under that statute, the appellate authority
is to consist of a sitting or retired Supreme Court Judge or a sitting or
H retired Chief Justice of a High Court and a Vice-Chairman who has been
AP. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. M.V. NAYUDU [JAGANNADHA RAO, J.[ 257
an administrator of high rank with expertise in technical aspects of A
.problems relating to environment; and Technical Members, not exceeding
three, who have professional knowledge or practical· experience in the
areas pertaining to conservation, environmental management, land or plan-
ning and development. Appeals to this appellate authority are to be
preferred by persons aggrieved by an order granting environmental
clearance in the areas in which any industries, operations or processes etc.
B
are to be carried or carried subject to safeguards.

As stated above and we reiterate that there is need to see that in the
appellate authority under the Water (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1974,
the Air (prevention of Pollution) Act, and the appellate authority under C
Rule 12 of the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989,
under the notification issued under Section 3(3) of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 for National Capital Territory and under section 10
of the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 and other appellate
bodies, there are invariably Judicial and Technical Members included. This D
Court has also observed in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Shriram
Foods & Fertilizers case (1986] 2 SCC 176 (at 262) that there should be a
right of regular appeal to the Supreme Court, i.e. an appeal incorporated in
the relevant statutes. This is a matter for the Governments concerned to
consider urgently, by appropriate legislation whether plenary or subor-
dinate or by amending the notifications. E

17te duty of the present generation towards posterity : Principle of Inter-genera-
tional Equity : Rights of the Future against the Present :

The principle of Inter-generational equity is of recent origin. The
F
1972 Stockholm Declaration refers to it in principles 1 and 2. In this
context, the environment is viewed more as a resource basis for the survival
of the present and future generations.

Principle 1 states :
G
"Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate
conditions of life, in an environment of quality that permits a life
of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to
protect and improve the environment/or present and future genera-
tions ......... " H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.
t

A Principle 2 .: ....
"The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, lands,
flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural .•
ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and
future generations through careful planning or management, as
B appropriate."
4

Several international conventions and lieaties have recognised the above
principles and in fact several imaginative proposals have been submitted >
including - the locus standi of individuals or groups to take out actions as
c representatives of future generations, or appointing Ombudsman to take
care of the rights of the future against the present {proposals of Sands &
Brown Weiss referred to by Dr. Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju, Special Rap"
porteur, paras 97, 98 of his report).

Whether the Supreme Cowt while dealing with environmental matters under
D A1ticle 32 or Anicle 136 or High Courts under Article 226 caii make reference
to the National Environmental Appellate Authority under the 1997 Act for
investigation and opinion :

In a large number of matters coming up before this Court either
E under Article 32 or under Article 136 and also before the High Courts
under Article 226, complex issues relating to environment and pollution,
science and technology have been arising and in some cases, this Court has
been finding sufficient difficulty in providing adequate solutions to meet
the requirements of public interest, environmental protection, elimination
of pollution and sustained development. In some cases this Court has been
F referring matters to professional or technical bodies. The monitoring of a
case as it progresses before the professional body and the consideration of
objections raised by affected parties to the opinion given by these profes-
sional technical bodies have again been creating complex problems. Fur-
ther these matters sometime require day to day hearing which, having
G regard to other workload of this Court, (- a factor mentioned by Lord
Woolf) it is not always possible to give urgent decisions. In such a situation,
~
this Court has been feeling the need for an alternative procedure which
can be expeditious and scientifically adequate. Question is whether, in such
a situation, involving grave public interest, this Court could seek the help
H of other statutory bodies which have an adequate combination of both
• AP. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. M.V. NA YUDU (JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 259
-I Judicial and technical expertise in environmental matters, like the Appel- A
late Authority under the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act,
1997?

A similar question arose in Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1998]
5 SCALE 219 = (1998) 6 J.T. 338, decided by this Court on 10.9.1998. In
J that case, initially, W. Petitions (Crl.) No. 447 and 497 of 1995 were filed
B
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India alleging flagrant violations of
human rights in the State of Punjab as disclosed by a CBI report submitted
to this Court. This Court felt the need to have these allegations investigated
by an independent body. This Court then passed an order on 12.12.1996
requesting the National Human Rights Commission to examine the matter. c
The said Commission is headed by a retired Chief Justice of India and
other expert Members. After the matter went before the said Commission,
various objections were raised as to its jurisdiction. It was also contended
that if these issues were to be otherwise inquired into by the Commission
upon a complaint, they would have stood time barred. ·These objections D
were rejected by the Commission by an elaborate order on 4.8.1997 holding
that once the Supreme Court referred the matters to the Commission, it
was acting sui juris, that its services could be utilised by the Supreme Court
treating the Commission as an instrumentality or agency of the Supreme
Court, that the period of limitation under the Protection of Human Rights
Act, 1993 would not apply, that in spite of the reference to the Commission, E
the Supreme Court would continue to have seisin of the case and any
determination by the Commission, wherever nel:c;ssary or appropriate,
would be subject to the approval of the Supreme Court.

Not satisfied with the above order of the Commission, the Union of p
India filed clarification application Crl. M.P. No. 6674 of 1997 etc. This
Court then passed the order aforementioned in Paramjit Kaur v. State of
Punjab, [1998] 5 SCALE 219 = (1998) 6 J.T. 332 SC on 12.12.1998
accepting the reasons given by the Commission in rejecting the objections.
In that context, this Court held that (i) the Commission was an expert body
consisting of experts in the field (ii) if this Court could exercise certain G
powers under Article 32, it could also request the expert body to investigate
or look into the allegations, unfettered by any limitations in the Protection
of Human Rights Act, 1993, (iii) that by so referring the matters to the
Commission, this Court was not conferring any new jurisdiction on the
Commission, and (iv) that the Commission would be acting only in aid of H

.
'
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.

A this Court. In our view, the above procedure in Paramjit Kaur v. State of
Punjab is equally applicable in the case before us for the following reasons.

Envirmunental concerns arising in this Court under Article 32 or
under Article 136 or under Article 226 in the High Courts are, in our view,
of equal importance as Human Rights concerns, In fact both are to be
B traced to Article 21 which deals with fundamental right to life and liberty.
While environmental aspects concern 'life', human rights aspects concern
'liberty'. In our view, in the context of emerging jurisprudence relating to
environmental matters, • as it is the case in matters relating to human
rights, · it is the duty of this Court to render Justice by taking all aspects
C into consideration. With a view to ensure that there is neither danger to
environment nor to ecology and at the same time ensuring sustainable
development, this Court in our view, can refer scientific and technical
aspects for investigation and opinion to expert bodies such as the Appellate
Authority under the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act,
1997. The said authority comprises of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court
D and Members having technical expertise in environmental matters whose
investigation, analysis of facts and opinion on objections raised by parties,
could give adequate help to this Court or the High Courts and also the
needed reassurance. Any opinions rendered by the said authority would of
course be subject to the approval of this Court. On the analogy of Paramjit
E Kaur's case, such a procedure, in our opinion, is perfectly within the bounds
of the law. Such a procedure, in our view, can be adopted in matters arising
in this Court under Article 32 or under Article 136 or arising before the
High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The order of reference :
F
After the above view was expressed to counsel on both sides, certain
draft issues were prepared for reference. There was some argument that
some of the draft issues could not be referred to the Commission while
some others required modification. After hearing arguments, parties on
G both sides agreed for reference of the following issues to the Appellate
Authority under the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act,
1997.

We shall now set out these issues. They are:

H (a) Is the respondent industry a hazardous one and what is its
AP. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. M. V. NAYUDU [JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 261

"'< pollution potentiality, taking into account, the nature of the product, the A·
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? B
We may add that it shall be open to the authority to inspect the
premises of the factory, call for document from the parties or any other
body or authority or from the Government of Andhra Pradesh or Union
Government and to examine witnesses., if need be. The Authority shall also C
have all powers for obtaining data or technical advice as it may deem
necessary from any source. It shall give an opportunity to the parties or
their counsel to file objections and lead such oral evidence or produce such
documentary evidence as they may deem fit and shall also give a hearing
to the appellant or its counsel to make submissions.
D
A question has been raised by the:_..:spondent industry that it may
be permitted to make trial mns for atleast three months so that the results
of pollution, could be monitored and analysed. This was opposed by the
appellant and the private respondent. We have not thought it fit to go into
this question and we have informed counsel that this issue could also be E
left to the said Authority to decide because we do not know whether any
such trial runs would affect the environment or cause pollution. On this
aspect also, it shall be open to the authority to take a decision after hearing
the parties.

Parties have requested that the authority may be required to give its F
opinion as early as possible. We are of the view that the Authority could
be requested to give its opinion within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of this order. We, therefore, refer the abc-ve issues to the
above-said Appellate Authority for its opinion and request the Authority
to give its opinion, as far as possible, within the period above-mentioned. G
If the Authority feels any further clarifications or directions are necessary
from this Court, it will be open to it to seek such clarifications or directions
from this Court.

The Company shall make available photo copies of the paper books
filed in this Court or other papers filed in the High Court or before the H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.
A authority under section 28 of the Water Act, 1974, for the use of the .,,-
Appellate Authority.

The Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the Appellate
Authority under the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act,
1997. Matter may be listed before us after three months, as part-heard.
B Ordered accordingly.

In the . context of recommendations made for amendment of the
environmental laws and rules by the Central Government and notifications
issued by the Central and State Governments, we direct copies of this
judgment to be communicated to the Secretary, Environment & Forests
C (Government of India), New Delhi, to the Secretaries of Environment &
Forests in all State Governments and Union Territories, and to the Central
Pollution Control Board, New Delhi. We further direct the Central Pollu-
tion Control Board to communicate a copy of this judgment to all State
Pollution Control Boards and other authorities dealing with environment,
D pollution, ecology and forest and wildlife. The State Governments shall also
take steps to communicate this judgment to their respective State Pollution
Control Boards and other authorities dealing with the above subjects - so
that appropriate action can be taken expeditiously as indicated in this
judgment.,

E P.T. Appeals still pending.