AP Pollution Control Board-II v. Prof. MV Nayudu
India Supreme Court
(2001) 4 LRI 657 (1 December 2000)
- Written by Andrea Smith, JD
Facts
An industrial company (plaintiff) wanted to produce castor-oil derivatives within 10 kilometers of two lakes used for drinking water in nearby cities in India. The proposed location was contrary to a 1996 policy that prohibited industries from locating their operations within 10 kilometers of drinking-water sources. The AP Pollution Control Board (the board) (defendant) objected to the company’s proposed site because the industrial activities would generate pollutants that could leak into the lakes. The Commissioner of Industries countered that no liquid discharge would be generated, and all solid wastes would be disposable. The industrial company presented this information to the state government, which granted the industrial company an exemption to the 10-kilometer rule. An environmental-protection organization filed suit to quash the exemption order. The India Supreme Court referred the case to the National Environmental Appellate Authority for its opinion on whether there was a likelihood of serious pollution of the drinking water. The National Environmental Appellate Authority produced a report that did not support the actions or intentions of the industrial company. The industrial company filed objections to the report with the Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jagannadha Rao, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.