Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > Environmental Laws > The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 > Powers of State Pollution Control Board
In this article, we shall study the powers of State Pollution Control Board.
Power to Obtain Information (Section 20):
For the purposes of enabling the State Pollution Control Board to perform the functions prescribed by the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, it may survey any area and keep records of the flow and volume and other characteristics of a stream or well. The State Pollution Control Board is empowered to give directions requiring any person who is abstracting water from any such stream or well or is discharging sewage or trade effluent into any such stream or well, to give such information as to the abstraction or the discharge in the form prescribed. The state pollution control board is also empowered to give directions to any person in charge of any establishment where any industry, operation or process, or treatment and disposal system is carried out, to furnish all information regarding the construction, installation or operation of such establishment or of any disposal system or of any extension or addition thereto in such establishment.
Power to Take Samples of Effluents for Analysis (Section 21):
The State Pollution Control Board or any officer authorized by the State Pollution Control Board shall have the power to take samples of water from any stream or well or samples of any sewage or trade effluent, for the purpose of analysis.
In Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, AIR 1986 Delhi 152 case, a sample of trade effluent was taken by the board from bottling company’s discharge stream and after the analysis was found not confirming the requirements of the consent order granted to the company. The board filed a suit under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and accordingly an injunction was issued by the court requiring the company to establish a treatment plant which the bottling company challenged. The Court held that the sample was not taken in strict compliance with the procedure as under Section 21 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and this evidence cannot be regarded as admissible.
In Abdul Hamid v. Gwalior Rayon Co. 1989 CrLJ 2013 M.P. case, the Court pointed out that Section 21 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is meant for protection of the industries and industrialists ensuring a proper balance between the hazards to the citizens and conflicting claims of the nation’s industrial progress.
Power of Entry and Inspection (Section 23):
Section 23 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 confers the power of entry and inspection on the State Pollution Control Boards. This Section provides that any person empowered by the State Board in this behalf shall have a right to enter, at any time and with such assistance as he considers necessary, any place for the following purposes: (a) For performing any of the functions of the State Board entrusted to him;
(b) For determining whether and if so in what manner (i) any such functions are to be performed, or (ii) whether provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder, or (iii) any notice, order, direction or authorization, served, made, given or granted under this Act is being or has been complied with;
(c) For examining any plant, record, register, document or any other material object;
(d) For conducting a search of any place in which he has reasons to believe that an offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder has been or is being or is about to be committed; and
(e) for seizing any such plant, record, register, document or other material object, if he has reasons to believe that it may furnish any evidence for the commission of offence punishable under this Act for the rules made thereunder.
Power to Impose Restrictions on New Outlets and New Discharges (Section 25):
Section 25 provides that no person shall without the previous consent of the State Pollution Control Board :
(a) Establish or take any steps to establish any (i) industry, (ii) operation or process, (iii) any treatment and disposal system, or (iv) any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well, sewer or on land; or
(b) Bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage, or
(c) Begin to make any new discharge of sewage.
In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037, the Court held that the financial capacity of the tanneries is not a relevant consideration while requiring them to set up primary treatment plants. A tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be granted consent by the State Pollution Control Board to continue its existence.
In Narula Dying and Printing Works v. Union of India, AIR 1995 Guj 185 case, the Court held that a consent order made under section 25 (2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 by the State Pollution Control Board does not entitle the industrial unit to discharge trade effluents into stream and it is obligatory for the unit to comply with the conditions mentioned in the consent order and put up effluent treatment plants with the time specified in the consent order.
In Mahavir Soap and Godakhu Factory v. Union of India, AIR 1995 Orissa 218 case, the State Pollution Control Board refused the consent to the continuation of the factory in a thickly populated area on the public complaint. The Court held that it was a genuine reason for the refusal to grant consent and the Court had no reason to substitute its opinion in place of State Pollution Control Board’s decision.
In T.N. Godaverman Tirumalpad v. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 47 case, the Court held that where there are various sources of pollution, they may be regulated by the State Pollution Control Board step by step and it was not for the Court to direct the government as to which step should be regulated first and so on.
In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62 case, the Court made it clear that prohibition under section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 extends even to newly opening industries which are in the process of being set up. Therefore, permission from the State Pollution Control Board must be sought when steps are being taken to establish an industry.
Power to refuse or withdraw consent for establishment of any industry etc., (Section 27):
The State Pollution Control Board shall not grant its consent for the establishment of any industry, operation or process, etc. is to establish as to comply with all the conditions imposed by the Board. The State Pollution Control Board may from time to time review any condition and may require the person to whom the consent is granted to make a reasonable variation of such condition or the State Pollution Control Board may revoke any such condition.
In Narula Dying and Printing Works v. Union of India, AIR 1995 Guj 185 case, the Court held that obtaining a consent order from the State Pollution Control Board does not mean that the industry is entitled to discharge trade effluent into the stream. It is incumbent upon the industry to comply with all the conditions prescribed in the Consent order within the stipulated time limit failure to fulfill the conditions will result in the lapse of the consent.
In Mahavir Soap and Godakhu Factory v. Union of India, AIR 1995 Orissa 218 case, the State Pollution Control Board refused the consent to the continuation of industry on the ground that factory is located in the populated area and there was a public complain. It was held that the reasons cited by the State Pollution Control Board are in conformity with the object of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Court further held that the refusal is in the discretion of the State Pollution Control Board.
Power to carry out certain work (Section 30):
In cases where the State Pollution Control Board has granted consent subject to certain conditions and such conditions require such person to execute any work in connection therewith, the person is expected to carry out those works to fulfil the conditions under which the consent was granted. If the person fails to execute any work in connection with the fulfillment of the conditions imposed by the State Pollution Control Board, then the State Pollution Control Board serve a notice on the person requiring him to execute the work within the time period prescribed in the notice. In spite of the notice if the person to whom the notice is served fails to execute such work and all expenses incurred by the State Pollution Control Board for the execution of the aforesaid work together with the interest will be recovered by the State Pollution Control Board from the person concerned as arrears of the land revenue.
Power to carry out emergency operations in the case of pollution of streams or well (Section 32):
If it appears to the State Pollution Control Board that any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter is present in any stream or well or on land by reason of discharge of such matter in such stream or such well or such land or as entered into that stream or well due to any accident or other unforeseen act or event, the State Pollution Control Board may for the reasons recorded in writing carry out certain emergency operations for all or any of the following purposes:
- Removing the matter from the stream or well or on the land and disposing it off in such a manner as the Board considerers appropriate;
- Remedying or mitigating any pollution caused by its presence in the stream or well;
- Issuing order immediately restraining or prohibiting the person concerned from the discharging any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into the stream or well or on land or from making unsanitary use of the stream or well.
Power to make an application to courts for restraining apprehended pollution of water in streams or wells (Section 33):
If the State Pollution Control Board apprehend that the water in any stream or well is likely to be polluted by reason of the disposal or likely disposal of any matter in such streams or well or in sewer, or on any land, or otherwise, the SPCB may make an application to a court not inferior to a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate for restraining the person who is likely to cause such pollution from causing such pollution.
In Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1998 Raj. 9, case, a trade effluent was being discharged in the Bandi River by the mill. The State Pollution Control Board filed an application under Section 33 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to restrain the industry of causing water pollution. The Court held that section 33 is a social piece of legislation and provides a remedial measure and makes a provision for remedial action being taken where there is an apprehension that the water in any stream or well is likely to be polluted on account of disposal or likely disposal of trade effluent in such stream or well.
In Sukhna Paper Mill v. State of Punjab (1995) III CCR 838 (P&H) case, the Court held that where the decision issued by the court is not complied with, the Court can authorize the Board to undertake removal or disposal of the matter in such manner as may be specified by the Court for desisting pollution of water in any stream or well.
Power to give directions (Section 33A):
The State Pollution Control Board may, in exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under the Water Act, issue any direction in writing to the person, officer or authority, and such person, officer, or authority shall be bound to comply with such directions. The power to issue directions includes the power to direct the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or proves or the stoppage or regulation of electricity, water or any other services.
In Ambuja Petro Chemical v. A.P. Pollution Control Board AIR 1997 AP 41 case, a petition was filed before the court against misappropriate order of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board requiring the closure of the factory premises of the petitioner. The petitioner was issued with a notice alleging that the effluent sample disclosed the values are in excess of the standard prescribed by the State Pollution Control Board. It was also alleged that the petitioner was not lifting the effluent for final treatment and disposal. Thereafter, the State Pollution Control Board issued the preceding for the closure of the unit, which was challenged in the writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition the Andhra Pradesh High Court opined that the order passed by the State Pollution Control Board directing the closure of the industry is not appropriate. However, the court said that it was always open to the Petitioners Industry to comply with the directions issued by the State Pollution Control Board for restarting its industrial activities.
In Associated Trades v. State Of West Bengal, 1996 AIHC 2795 case, the Court held that the State Pollution Control Board should give the industry an opportunity to take any remedial measures for the purpose of prevention and control of water pollution before passing an order of closure of industry under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
In Mandu Distillers v. M.P Pradushan Niwaran Mandal AIR 1995 MP 57 case, the Court quashed the order of closure made by the State Pollution Control Board on the ground that there was a denial of principles of natural justice and violation of procedural safeguard.
In Re: Bhavani River Shakthi sugar Ltd., (1998) 2 SSC 601 case, the Court upheld the order of closure made by the State Pollution Control Board. Since the industry did not take any remedial steps despite enough time granted, The State Pollution Control Board ordered the closure of the Industry
In M.C. Mehta V. Union of India (1997)2 SSC 411 case, the Court upheld the order of closure of Tanneries made by the Board since the Tanneries in Calcutta were operating in violation of the provision of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as well as Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
In Stella Silks v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 Kant 219. Case, the Court upheld the order of closure of industry made by the State Pollution Control Board. The Court noticed that in spite of the notice issued by the State Pollution Control Board, the petitioner continued to the industry and also continued to pollute the environment by discharging polluted water.
Under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, different penalties have been prescribed for violating different provisions of the water act. Sections 41 to 45-A are relevant provisions in this regard.
Previous Topic: Functions and Powers of Pollution Control Board
Next Topic: Mechanism of Control of Water Pollution