A.P. Pollution Control Board Vs Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.)
- IJLLR Journal
- 14 minutes ago
- 2 min read
Mythiswari S, Government Law College - Salem, Tamilnadu
INTRODUCTION:
Water is universally recognized as a fundamental resource essential for life, health, and sustainable development. The United Nations has repeatedly emphasized that access to clean and safe water is not just a basic need but a human right that must be protected for present and future generations. In India, this principle gained strong legal backing through the landmark case A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. M.V. Nayudu (1999)1, where the Supreme Court of India highlighted the need to prioritize environmental protection over unchecked industrialization. The judgment reinforced that safeguarding water sources is a constitutional responsibility, linking the right to clean water with the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
Prof. M.V. Nayudu wanted to set up a vegetable oil plant near Hyderabad’s drinking water lakes. The AP Pollution Control Board denied permission to protect water quality, and the Supreme Court upheld this, stressing the precautionary principle and the right to clean water.
FACT OF THE CASE:
In this case, Prof. M.V. Nayudu, a retired professor, proposed to establish a vegetable oil manufacturing plant in Peddaspur village, Andhra Pradesh.
The proposed site was located within 10 kilometers of the Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes, which supply drinking water to Hyderabad and Secunderabad.
In 1988, the Ministry of Environment and Forests had classified the production of vegetable oils as a potentially hazardous industrial activity due to possible
environmental risks.
The Andhra Pradesh government, recognizing the ecological sensitivity of the area, issued a notification in 1994 prohibiting industrial activities within 10 kilometers of these lakes to protect the quality of drinking water.
Nayudu applied to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to construct and operate the plant despite the government notification.
The APPCB examined the proposal and rejected the NOC application, citing the risk that the plant could pollute the lakes and endanger the drinking water supply for millions of residents.
Nayudu challenged the APPCB’s decision before the Appellate Authority under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, arguing that proper safeguards could prevent pollution; the Appellate Authority ruled in his favor.
The APPCB, concerned about the broader environmental and public health implications, appealed the Appellate Authority’s decision to the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court upheld the APPCB’s rejection, emphasizing the precautionary principle, which allows preventive action in cases of potential environmental harm, and held that the burden of proof lies on the party proposing the industrial activity to show it will not cause pollution.
The Court also recognized that the right to clean drinking water is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and concluded that protecting the lakes and public health outweighed the interests of establishing the industrial plant.
