MEMORIAL ON THE CASE

‘A.P POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD V. PROF. M.V. NAYUDU AND

ORS.’

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

SUBMITTED TO:                                         SUBMITTED BY:

DR.ANJALI YADAV ABHAYAJIT

(ASST PROFESSOR) B.A.LL.B 3RD SEMESTER

SARDAR PATEL SUBHARTI INSTITUTE OF LAW

SWAMI VIVEKANAND SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY,
MEERUT, U.P.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

1
 IN THE HONABLE SUPREME COURT

A.P POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD .......................................APPELLANT

V/S

M.V.NAYUDU & ORS..................................................................RESPONDENT

Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the very outset, I would like to pay thanks to the almighty God. It gives me immense pleasure
to acknowledge and to say thanks to the ones who helped me throughout the course of my work.
I am really thankful to our respected subject teacher MS.ANJALI YADAV (ASST
PROFESSOR) Sardar Patel Subharti Institute of Law, Swami Vivekananda Subharti University
as well as our principal Dr. Vaibhav Goel Bhartiya who gave me the golden opportunity to do
this wonderful project which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about
so many new things. She helped us in a passive way. She gave me moral support and guided me
in different matters regarding the topic. She had been very kind and patient while suggesting me
the outlines of this Memorial and correcting my doubts.

I thank her for overall supports. Constructive suggestions have always been soothing and desired
effect, hence it my duty to express my gratitude for her constant support and encouragement.

ABHAYAJIT
BA.LLB
3rd SEMESTER

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………….4

2. Index of Authorities..........................................................................................................5

3. Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………..6

4. Facts of the case………………………………………………………………………....7

5. Issues Raised……………………………………………………………………….…....8

6. Arguments ........................................................................................................................9

7. Prayer................................................................................................................................10

4
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

A.I.R All India Reporter

B/W Between

H.C. High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

i.e., That is

V/S Versus

Sec. Section

U/S Under Section

No. Number

N.O.C No Objection Certificate

PCB Pollution Control Board

5
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

Index of Authorities:

Books

 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW by SC SHASTRI

 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW by J.J.R. UPADHAYA

Links Referred

 www.indiankanoon.com
 http://www.manupatra.com
 http://www.indlaw.com
 http://www.lawyerclubindia.com

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

6
 Statement of Jurisdiction:

The Appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under the Article 32 in The
Constitution of India 1950.

Article 32 in The Constitution Of India 1950

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

7
 Facts of The Case:

 Respondent industry sought to establish a new factory in the State of Andhra Pradesh to
produce vegetable oils. The industry purchased land in Peddashpur village, within 10KM
of two reservoirs that provided drinking water for 5 million people.

 In 1988, the Ministry of Forests and Environment established a “red” list of hazardous
industries, including industry which produces “vegetable oils including solvent extracted
oils.” This Notification was issued by the Central Government based on its powers under
the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act of 1974 (“Water Act”), the Air
Prevention and Control of Pollution Act of 1981 (“Air Act”), the Water Prevention and
Control of Pollution Act of 1977, and the Environment Protection Act of 1986
(“Environment Act”). Under these statutes, the Central Government directed that when
the Pollution Control Board (“PCB”) processed No Objection Certificate (“NOC”)
applications, it should determine which category (such as the “red” category) the industry
belonged to, keeping in mind the pollution-causing potential of the industry.

 In 1994, under the directive of the Central government, the State of Andhra Pradesh
issued notification GO 192, which prohibited industries from being located within 10 KM
of reservoirs (“10 KM rule”).

 In 1995, respondent applied for NOC from the State of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control
Board (“Board”). The State notified the Central Government that it wanted to extend an
exemption to the 10 KM rule to respondent, which was accepted on the condition that the
industry obtain an NOC from the environmental authority of the State. The government
then reaffirmed the 10 KM rule in March 1996. The Board subsequently rejected the
application because of the 10 KM rule.

 Even after their application was rejected, respondent obtained permission for establishing
a factory. At that point, the Commission of Industries informed the respondent that it
should select an alternative site, but respondent proceeded to obtain permission to change
the land use from agricultural to non-agricultural use, executed various civil works, and
installed machinery.

 Respondent then, once again, applied for an NOC from the Board. In its application,
respondent noted that its by-products would include “glycerine, spent bleaching earth and
carbon and spent nickel catalysts,” which the Board noted could find their way to lakes
either directly or indirectly. The Board thus, again, rejected respondent’s application,
noting that it was an industry included in the “red” list.

 Respondent then requested an exemption from the 10 KM rule from the State
Government because it had already invested a large amount in its operations. The State
Government granted the exemption and directed the Board to prescribe precautions to be

8
 taken by the respondent to safeguard against pollution. The Board set out a list of
precautions because it was required to, but stood firm in rejecting the application for the
NOC.

 Respondent then filed an appeal with the Appellate Authority under Section 28 of the
Water Act, and for the first time provided an affidavit from Dr. Santappa, then a
Scientific Officer for a different state Board, in favor of its application. The Appellate
Authority allowed the appeal and reversed the orders of the Board, finding that the “Red”
list did not apply outside the Doon Valley, and relying on Dr. Santappa’s affidavit, which
stated that respondent had used the latest eco-friendly technology. The Appellate
Authority also held that under the principle of promissory estoppel, the Board had to
grant the NOC because respondent had been granted permission for change of land-use
and to erect a factory.

  The High Court directed A.P. Pollution Control Board to grant consent subjected to such
conditions as might be imposed by the Board. 

 The decision of the Appellate Authority was appealed.

9
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

Issues Raised:

1. Whether the orders passed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board were valid or not?

2. Whether the exemption granted for the operation of the 10 k.m. rule was valid?

10
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

Arguments:

 Validity of orders by the Pollution Control Board:

1. The order of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board i.e. denying the N.O.C
to the industry was totally arbitrary .The industry has:
 Adopted the newest eco-friendly technology using all the safeguards
concerning pollution.
 Ensured that the industry won’t discharge any acidic effluents , this was
supported by the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology of Hyderabad.
 The solid waste that are the by-products are saleable and that they are
going to be collected in M.S. drums by mechanical method and sold. 
 The affidavit by  Prof. M. Santappa who was the scientific officer of
Tamil Nadu Pollution Board in the industry’s favour.

All the above-mentioned points clearly show that the respondent industry is ‘NOT A
POLLUTING INDUSTRY’.

2. Also, the request of the N.O.C which was made before the A.P. Pollution Control
Board was rejected by the board only on the contention that the industry could be
a polluting unit.
3. The industry was denied the N.O.C more than once ,even after adopting all the
various safeguards and techniques which are necessary to prevent pollution .

 Validity of the exemption granted to the 10km rule:

 The respondent industry obtained the exemption to the 10 km rule legally and
after satisfying the concerned authorities about its production and waste discharge
process.
 The industry is not a polluting industry , this has been established by the affidavit
in favour of the industry.

Hence , the exemption granted for the 10km rule is totally valid .

11
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

Prayer:

In the light of the facts stated,issues raised and arguments advanced, it is humbly submitted to
the Hon’ble Bench to adjure and hold:

The appeal should be dismissed.

Pass any other order which the court seems to deem fit in the light of Justice , Equity and Good
Conscience and the respondent shall forever; beseech the Hon’ble Bench for its cognitive
consideration.

All this is humbly submitted by

(Counsel for Respondent)

Abhayajit

12