1

PROJECT TITLE: WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF

POLLUTION) ACT, 1974

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

NAME OF THE FACULTY: MISS BUSHRA QASMI

SUBMITTED BY: CHANDRIKA CHOUDHARY AND ASIF KHAN

ROLL NO.: 2013038 AND 2013031

SEMESTER: 7TH SEMESTER

OCTOBER 2017

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher MISS BUSHRA

QASMI, who gave me the golden opportunity to do this project on WATER
(PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974, which also helped
me in doing a lot of research and I came to know about so many new things I am
really thankful to them.
Secondly I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in
finalizing this project within the limited frame. I want to convey a most sincere thanks
to my concerned faculty for helping me throughout the project without whose
exorbitant support this project would not have become a reality.

ABSTRACT

The Indian constitution recognizes the basic fundamental right of its citizens; the right
to a clean and healthy environment. Article 21 of the constitution insists that no
person shall be deprived of his/her life or personal liberty except according to the
procedure laid down by law. By this article, the Supreme Court of India in the case of
Subhash V State of Bihar held that the Right to Environment is a fundamental right of
every citizen in India as included in the right to live.
Water is cradle of life. It is a basic human need and a finite life support system. To
protect this precious resource, one needs a stringent enforcement system meant for its
conservation, sanitation and supply. Environmental laws are meant to set standards for
what people and institutions must do to control or prevent environmental pollution
including water. After enactment it becomes the job of the central and state
governments to make sure that those who are subject to these environmental
protection laws know what they must do to comply. In this case, we have designated
central and state institutions called the Central and State Pollution Control Boards
respectively. Their primary role is the enforcement of the Environmental Protection
Act (EPA) and its constituent statutory frameworks dating back to the Post Stockholm
environmental laws such as the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of
1974.
This research work endeavors to explore into the evolution and development of the
legal aspects of water pollution and its environment-related laws. The second
objective is to highlight the structural arrangements and functioning of the pollution
control boards and the persistent challenges that they face in enforcing the laws of the
land aimed at environmental protection. acts
Certain provision of The Water Cess Act 1977 have also been discussed as this act
paves the way for the funding of the works of the pollution boards under The Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction.......
2. Framework of the Water Act.
3. Scope of Judicial Relief under the Water Act
-

Pondicherry Paper Ltd. v. CBPC of Water Pollution

Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CBPC of Water Pollution

Aggarwal Textile Industries v. State of Rajasthan

4. Criminal Liability under the Water Act

5. The Water Cess Act
-

Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. Case

Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd...

6. Conclusion.
-

Prevention Measures

Penalties..

7. Bibliography

INTRODUCTION-

Fresh water is one of our most vital resources, and when our water is polluted it is not
only devastating to the environment, but also to human health. Water is a fundamental
human need. Each person on Earth requires atleast 20 to 50 liters of clean, safe water
a day for drinking, cooking and simply keeping themselves clean. Much of that water
comes from rivers, lakes and other surface water sources. Before it is delivered to our
homes it is treated to remove chemicals, particulates (e.g., soot and silt) and bacteria.
This clean, potable water is then used for cooking, drinking, cleaning, bathing,
watering our lawns and so forth.
Those that are served by public sanitation systems rely on sewers to keep untreated
wastewater from being released into the environment where it could potentially
contaminate our drinking water sources and the natural environment, when the water
goes down the drain or is flushed down the toilet, it usually enters a sewer system
where it travels to a wastewater treatment plant. The plant treats the wastewater and
removes solid waste and other contaminants before releasing the treated water it into
the environment. Depending on the type of treatment the wastewater receives, water
that is released could have different levels of quality from the water body which it is
released. Water is obviously essential for hydration and for food production- but
sanitation is an equally important, and complementary, use of water. A lack of proper
sanitation services not only breeds disease, it can rob people of their basic human
dignity.
The quality of our water is directly linked to the quality of our lives. By supporting
clean water initiatives and similar measures that improve our water and wastewater
treatment systems, we can each have a hand in ensuring clean, safe water for
ourselves, our families and our communities.
FRAMEWORK OF THE WATER ACTThe Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974 is a complex statute
which has been in effect for over two decades. Many features of the Act have
challenged in the courts. In this section we discuss the framework of the Water act and
analyze major issues including the scope of judicial relief authorized by the
constitutional challenges to the Act, liability of corporate officers, and funding of the
administration of the Act.

The Water Act of 1974 represented one of India's first attempts to deal
comprehensively with an environmental issue. Parliament adopted minor amendments
to the Act in 1978 and revised the Act in 1988 to more closely conform to the
provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986.
Water is a subject in the State List under the Constitution. 1 Consequently Water Act, a
central law, was enacted under Article 252(1) of the Constitution, which empowers
the Union Government to legislate in a field reserved for the states, when two or more
State Legislatures consent to a central law. All the states have approved
implementation of the Water Act as enacted in 1974.2
The Water Act establishes a Central and state pollution control boards. The Central
board may advise the Central Government on water pollution issues, coordinate the
activities of state pollution control boards, sponsor investigations and research
relating to water pollution, and develop a comprehensive plan for the control and
prevention of water pollution.3 The Central Board also performs the functions of a
state board for the union territories. In conflicts between a State board and the Central
board prevails. Since 1982, the Central board has been attached to the Union
Governments Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife.
The Water Act is comprehensive in its coverage, applying to streams, inland waters,
subterranean waters, and sea or tidal waters. Standards for the discharge of effluent or
the quality of the receiving waters are not specified in the Act itself. Instead, the Act
enables state boards to prescribe these standards.4
The Act provides for a permit system or 'consent' procedure to prevent and control
water pollution. The Act generally prohibits disposal of polluting matter in streams,
wells and sewers or on land in excess of the standards established by the state boards. 5
A person must obtain consent from the state board before taking steps to establish any
industry, operation or process, any treatment and disposal system or any extension or
addition to such a system which might result in the discharge of sewage or trade
effluent into a stream, well or sewer or onto land.6The state board may condition its
consent by orders that specify the location, construction and use of the outlet as well
1

Entry 17, List II, Seventh Schedule.

However, the 1988 amendment has yet to be adopted by all the states.
3
Section 16 of the Water Act, 1974.
4
Section 17(g), The Environment (Protection) Act of 1986gives the Central Government similar
authority to establish water quality and effluent standards throughout India.
5
Section 24.
6
Section 25. Section 26 requires that persons releasing water pollutants prior to the adoption of the
Water Act must also meet the consent requirements of section 25.
2

as the nature and composition of new discharges. The state board must maintain and
make public a register containing the particulars of the consent orders. The Act
empowers a state board, upon thirty days notice to a polluter, to execute any work
required under a consent order which has not been executed. The board may recover
the expenses for such work from the polluters.
Other functions of the state boards specified by the Water Act include: (1) planning a
comprehensive program for prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution in
the state; (2) encouraging, conducting, and participating in investigations and research
of water pollution problems; (3) inspecting facilities for sewage and trade effluent
treatment; and (4) developing economical and reliable methods of treatment of
sewage and trade effluents.7 The Act gives the state boards the power of entry and
inspection to carry out their functions.8 Moreover, a state board may take certain
emergency measures if it determines that an accident or other unforeseen event has
polluted a stream or well. These measures include removing the pollutants, mitigating
the damage, and issuing orders to the polluter prohibiting effluent discharges.
The 1988 amendment introduced a new section 33A which empowers state boards to
issue directions to any person, officer or authority, including orders to close, prohibit
or regulate any industry, operation or process and to stop or regulate the supply of
water, electricity or any other service. Prior to the adoption of section 33A, a state
board could issue direct orders to polluters under section 32 of the Act. A state board,
however, could only exercise this power if the pollution arose from any accident or
other unforeseen act or event. Moreover, a state board's authority to issue orders under
section 32 was limited to orders directed to the polluter, not to government officials or
other parties. The state boards can also apply to courts for injunctions to prevent water
pollution under section 33 of the Act. Under section 41, the penalty for failure to
comply with a court order under section 33 or a direction from the board under
section 33A is punishable by fines and imprisonment.
The amendments also increased the power of the Central board relative to the state
boards. Under section 18 of the Act, the Central Government may determine that a
state board has failed to comply with Central board directions and that because of this
failure an emergency has arisen. The Central Government may then direct the Central
board to perform the functions of the state board.
7
8

Section 17.
Section 23.

The 1988 amendments modified section 49 to allow citizens to bring actions under the
Water Act. Now a state board must make relevant reports available to complaining
citizens, unless the board determines that the disclosures would harm 'public interest'.
Previously, the Act allowed courts to recognize only those actions brought by a board,
or with a previous written sanction of a board.
SCOPE OF JUDICIAL RELIEF UNDER THE WATER ACTJudicial opinion concerning the scope of section 33 of the Water Act is divided. In the
following excerpt from the Pondicherry Papers Ltd. Case, the doctrines invoked by
the Madras High Court in its ruling that courts have broad powers to fashion orders
under section 33.
Pondicherry Papers Ltd vs. Central Board for Prevention and Control of Water
Pollution-9
[The Central board, acting as a state board for Pondicherry, applied to a magistrate's
court under Section 33 of the Water Act seeking an injunction restraining a paper
company from discharging effluent until the company constructed a water treatment
plant as required by the conditions of the board's consent orders. The magistrate
issued an injunction. The company filed a motion to quash the injunction on the
grounds that a magistrate does not have the authority under Section 33 to order
compliance with a consent order.]
Relevant part of the order
The next question is what the powers of the Magistrate are when such an application
is made. Sub-section (3) deals with these powers. The Court may make an order
restraining the petitioner from polluting the water in any stream or well and in doing
so, it may in that order direct the petitioner to desist from taking such action as is
likely to cause pollution, or, as the case may be, remove from such stream or well
such matter, or it can authorize the Board [to do so] under sub-section 3(ii). It is well
recognized that where an Act confers a jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power
of doing all such acts or employing such means as are essentially necessary to its
execution, but before implying the existence of such a power, the court must be

Madras High Court Cri.M.P.No. 4662 and 4663 of 1978 March 21, 1980

satisfied that the existence of that power is absolutely essential for the discharge of the
power conferred and not merely that it is convenient to have such a power.
In Dr. Indiremani Dyarelai Gupta v Nathu 10it has been held [that] to judge whether
legally a power could be vested in a statutory body, the proper rule of interpretation is
that unless the nature of the power was such as to be inconsistent with the purpose for
which the body was created, or unless the particular power was contra indicated by
any specific provision of the Act, any power which furthers the provision of the Act,
could be legally conferred.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act is social welfare legislation,
enacted for the purpose of prevention of pollution of water and for maintaining or
restoring wholesomeness of water. Therefore, the Act has to be strictly enforced and
every effort should be made to carry out the true intent of the legislation. On these
principles, the Magistrate has to act when an application is filed under Section 33 and
it would be for him to determine according to the circumstances of the case what
order he should pass in order to give effect to the provisions of the Act and to remove
the pollution or prevent it.
The Madras High Court clearly found that based on the doctrines of implied powers
and strict enforcement of public welfare legislation, courts have broad powers to
fashion injunctive relief under section 33 of the Water Act. The Allahabad High Court
implicitly adopts this view.11 When we compare this approach with that of the Delhi
high Court in the following excerpt. The Central board has issued consent orders to a
bottling company on the condition that the company builds a water treatment plant.
The company failed to build the plant and was polluting a nearby river with its
effluent. The board obtained an injunction under section 33 restraining the company
from polluting and ordering the company to build the treatment plant. The company
challenged the injunction in the Delhi High Court.
Delhi Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Board for the Prevention and Control
of Water Pollution-12
ORDER:
10
11

12

(1963(1) SCR 721)

Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. V. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur 1990 CRI LJ. 522.
AIR 1986 DEL 152.

10

The learned Magistrate also took note of the fact that the petitioners had not erected
any treatment plant as per Cl.5 of the consent order. [Petitioner's counsel] submitted
that there was no absolute obligation on the part of the petitioners to erect a separate
treatment plant so long as they were not discharging the effluents contrary to the
parameters as provided in the consent order. Be that as it may, the true interpretation
of the impugned order is that restraint order has been passed against the petitioners
restraining them from discharging their effluents in the stream which do not conform
to the quality as per the standards prescribed by the Board in its consent order and
thereby causing pollution of the stream. We cannot read between the orders that a
direction has been given to erect a treatment plant. Such a direction is also perhaps not
envisaged by the provisions of S.33 (1) of the Act. [Section] 33(1) only provides for
the passing of a restraint order by the court against the Company for ensuring
stoppage of apprehended pollution of water in the stream in which trade effluents of
the Company are discharged. I, therefore, need not go into the question as to whether
the petitioners' non-erection of a treatment plant was such an act on which the
impugned order was justified. The restraint order is also not based on that footing. For
the non-erection of the treatment plant the Board has the power to launch prosecution
against the defaulting Company under the provisions of S.41 of the Act.
Constitutional Challenges to Section 33 Restraining OrdersA tactic of the polluters to avoid the restraining orders under section 33 is a motion to
quash the order on the grounds that the Water Act violates the fundamental right to
carry on a trade or business guaranteed by Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of
India.
The Rajasthan High Court balanced the interests protected by the Water Act against
the competing interests protected by Article 19(1) (g) in the following case. A lower
court had issued a restraining order against textile companies that were discharging
effluents after the expiration of consent orders from the state and Central boards. The
companies filed writ petitions in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the validity of
the restraining order.
AGGRAWAL TEXTILE INDUSTRIES v STATE OF RAJASTHAN 13
13

Rajasthan High Court S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1375/80 March 2,1981

11

ORDER:
[Petitioners' counsel] has vehemently argued that the problem of prevention of water
pollution is a problem of vast magnitude and it wouldnt be beyond the means of an
individual to prevent or control the pollution resulting from an industry set up by him
and that the prohibition contained in Section 24 of the Act would result in complete
closure of the business of the petitioners and that it would thus result in imposing
unreasonable restrictions to carry on their trade and business. I am unable to accept
the aforesaid contention. It is true that the prevention and control of pollution of water
may involve expenditure beyond the means of a particular individual carrying on any
particular industry and it may require co-operation amongst various units and the local
authorities to effectively prevent and control such pollution. The Act also envisages
that one of the functions of the State Board is to plan a comprehensive program for
the prevention, control or abatement of pollution of streams and wells in the State and
to secure the execution thereof and to evolve economical and reliable methods of
treatment of sewage and trade effluent, having regard to the peculiar conditions of
soils, climate and water resources of different regions. But, this does not mean that an
individual, while exercising his right to carry on his trade or business, is free to
pollute the source of supply of water to other citizens, and thereby cause harm to the
interest of the general public. It cannot be disputed that pollution of water is a very
serious hazard for the health of the general public, and the provisions of the Act which
seek to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and maintaining or
restoring the wholesomeness of water are enacted in the interest of the general public.
The question which next arises for consideration is, whether the aforesaid restriction
that has been placed by Section 24 of the Act is an unreasonable restriction. Sub
section (2) of Section 24 enables a person to cause or permit a trade effluent to enter
into a stream provided the consent of the State Government is obtained. Sections 25
and 26 of the Act make provisions for the grant of consent by the State Board for
discharging any sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well. Section 28 provides for
an appeal against an order made by the State Board under Sections 25 and 26, and a
further right of revision is conferred under Section 29 of the Act. This shows that the
Act contains adequate provisions for grant of consent by the State Board as well as
provisions for appeal and revision against the orders passed by the State Board so as
to enable a person to carry on his trade or business after obtaining the consent of the
State Board. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that Section 24(1) imposes
12

unreasonable restrictions on the right of the petitioners to carry on their trade or

business.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER THE WATER ACTThe water act establishes criminal penalties of fines and imprisonment for
noncompliance with section 33 orders, section 20 directions concerning information,
section 32 emergency orders and section 33A directions issued by a state
board.14Polluters violating the act are also subject to criminal penalties.15 The 1998
amendments to the water act increased the penalties for these offences, bringing them
into line with the 1987 amendments to the Air act.
Section 47 of the water act extends liability for violations committed by companies to
certain corporate employees and officials. The act also extends liability for violation
to the heads of government departments.16
The following commentary17 discusses the liability of corporate officials and
employees under the water act- Section 47 of the water pollution act contains the
usual provision to the effect that where an offence under the act has been committed
by a company, every person, who at the time of the commission of the offence, was
in charge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of
the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and
shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Under the proviso
to the section, such company official is exempt from punishment, if he proves that the
offence had been committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due
diligence to prevent the commission of such offence . Company officials may well
like to bear in mind that statutory provisions making company officials liable are
contained in almost every Central Act that is enacted in recent times. In a way, such
provisions impose a fictional liability on the company officer.
The provision usually runs in two sub-sections. The first sub-section provides - as
does section 47 of the Water Pollution Act that every person who is in charge of and
responsible to the company for the conduct of the affairs of the company 'is liable' for
the offence (in addition to the company), unless he can prove that the offence had
14

Section 41
Section 43 & 44
16
Section 48
17
Bakshi; Corporate Executives and the Pollution Law, (1986) 2 Comp. L.J. 61
15

13

been committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to
prevent its commission. The second sub-section usually provides that where an
offence (under the relevant Act) has been committed by a company, and it proved that
the offence is due to the connivance of or attributable to any neglect on part of any
director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, then such director,
manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence
and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. This sub section,
it may be noted, is not confined to a person 'in charge' of the company responsible for
its affairs. It applies to every officer of the company, however small may be. But his
connivance or neglect has to be proved. In this sense, its scope is narrow. But in
another respect, the scope is wide, inasmuch as it does not require actual participation
or mental support of the officer. In the context of pollution law and offences under
such laws, such a provision in the Act would mean that if a companys production
manager or technical director has been remiss in ensuring that the pollution
regulations have been strictly complied with, and then he would become punishable
for the relevant offence under the Act. He may be miles away from the scene of the
offence and may not have sanctioned its commission. He might even have been
unaware of it. And yet, he would become criminally liable. Willfully permitting the
offence is not necessary in the Water Pollution Act; though such was the shape of the
provision in some earlier Central Acts imposing criminal liability on corporate
officials.
THE WATER CESS ACTParliament adopted the Water Cess (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1977
to provide funds for the Central and state pollution control boards. The Act empowers
the Central Government to impose a Cess on water consumed by industries listed in
Schedule I of the Act. Specified industries and local authorities are subject to the Cess
if they use water for purposes listed in Schedule II of the Act, which includes: (l)
industrial cooling, spraying in mine pits, or 'boiler feed'; (2) domestic purposes; (3)
processing which results in water pollution by biodegradable water pollutants; or (4)
processing which results in water pollution by water pollutants which are not easily
biodegradable or are toxic. A rebate of twenty-five per cent of the Cess is given to
complying industries and authorities.
14

Many companies challenged imposition of the Cess, claiming that they were not
within the specified industries.
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE BOARD FOR PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF
WATER POLLUTION v ANDHRA PRADESH RAYONS LTD.18
The question which is sought to be raised in this petition is whether the respondent
Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. Which is manufacturing Rayon Grade Pulp, a base
material for manufacturing of synthetics or man-made fabrics is an industry as
mentioned in Schedule I of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act,
1977 for the purposes of levy on Water Cess under the Act.
Specified industry is one which is mentioned in Schedule I which is as follows:
7. Chemical industry.
17. Textile industry.
18. Paper industry.
15. Processing of animal or vegetable products.
Before us it was sought to be canvassed that Rayon Grade Pulp is covered either by
Item NO.7 which is chemical industry or Item No. 10 which is textile industry or Item
No. 11 which is paper industry. We are unable to accept the contention.
It has to be borne that this Act with which we are concerned is an Act imposing
liability for Cess. The Act is fiscal in nature. The Act must, therefore, be strict:
construed in order to find out whether a liability is fastened on a particular industry
The subject is not to be taxed without clear words for that purpose; and also that every
Act of Parliament be read according to its natural construction of words. The purpose
of the Act is to realize money from those whose activities lead pollution and who
must bear the expenses of the maintenance and running of the State Board. It is a
fiscal provision and must, therefore, not only be literally construed but be strictly
construed. We find nothing to warrant the conclusion that Rayon Grade Pulp is
included in either of the industries as canvassed on behalf of the petitioner here.
KERALA STATE BOARD FOR PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WATER
POLLUTION v GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING (WEAVING)
COMPANY LTD.19
18

AIR 1989 SC 611

19

AIR 1986 KER 256

15

ORDER:
The Cess Act is not to be read in vacuum or in a manner dissociated with the Water
Pollution Act. The learned single Judge [in the lower court] felt that the Cess Act
could be viewed in isolation. That is evident from the following observation contained
in the judgment:
The purpose of the Pollution Act is to control water pollution; but the purpose of the
Cess Act is to levy and collect a Cess, i.e., a tax for a special administrative purpose.
You cannot make rules under the Cess Act to achieve the purposes of another Act.
[Emphasis supplied by the court.]
In Saraswati Sugar Mills v Haryana State Board 20 the Supreme Court strictly
construed the entry covering processing of animal or vegetable products industry to
exclude the manufacture of sugar from sugar cane.

CONCLUSIONAfter the Stockholm Conference in June 1972, it was considered appropriate to have a
uniform law across the country to deal with broader environment problems
endangering the health and safety of people as well as of the countrys flora and
fauna. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974(the Water Act)
was the first enactment by the Parliament in this direction. This was also the first
20

AIR 1992 SC 224. In view of this judgment, Kisan Sahakari Mills v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1987
ALL 298 and Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. v Pollution Control Board 1990 (2) KER.L.T. 924
are no longer good law. The strict construction test was reiterated by the Supreme Court in a 1995
decision reported at Bihar State Pollution Control Board v Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd.
1998 (8) SCC720.

16

specific and comprehensive legislation institutionalizing simultaneously the

regulatory agencies for controlling water pollution. The Pollution Control Boards at
the Centre and the States came into being in terms of this Act. The Water Act was
enacted with the aim of preventing and controlling water pollution in India. Pollution
has been defined under the Water Act as, the contamination of water or such
alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge
of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gas and solid substance into
water (whether directly or indirectly) as may be the case or is likely to create nuisance
or render such water harmful or injurious to public health or safety or to domestic,
commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses, or to the life and health of
animals or plant or of aquatic organizations.
Prevention Measures
The Water Act provides for a permit system similar to the one available under the Air
Act to prevent and control water pollution. The Water Act prohibits disposal of
polluting materials in streams (which includes subterranean waters), rivers, wells,
sewers, sea or tidal waters to such extent or, as the case may be, to such point as the
State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf,
in excess of the standards established by the Central Pollution Control Board. Under
the provisions of the Water Act a person must obtain consent from the State Pollution
Control Board before taking any steps to establish any industry, operation or process,
any treatment and disposal or any extension or addition to such a system which might
result in the discharge of sewerage or trade effluents into a stream, well or sewer or
onto land. The application to the State Pollution Control Board must be made under
Rule 32 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975in Form XIII.
The application requires specification of the type as well as quantity of the effluent.
The applicant is also required to attach a list of raw materials and chemicals used per
month. In the event there is a change in the raw materials used as well as the nature or
quantity of the effluent, a fresh consent would be required. Under the Water Act, the
State Pollution Control Board has the power to issue directions to any person, officer
or authority, including orders to close, prohibit or regulate any industry, operation or
process and to stop or regulate the supply of water, electricity and any other service.
The Powers and functions of the Central Pollution Control Board and the State
Pollution Control Boards under the Water Act are similar to those under the Air Act,
17

except in that they have greater powers in respect of certain matters specifically
enumerated under the Air Act which have not been mentioned under the Water Act.
Penalties
Sections 43 and 44 of the Water Act provide that whoever causes discharge of any
poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter into any stream or well or sewer or on land or
establishes any industry without the previous permission of the State Pollution
Control Board may be punished with a fine and imprisonment for a minimum term of
one year and six months and a maximum term of six years. It must be noted that the
Water Act provides for certain exceptional circumstances under which a person may
discharge polluting material in a water body, such as:
1. Constructing, improving and maintaining in or across or on the bank or bed of any
stream any building, bridge, weir, dam, sluice, dock, pier, drain or sewer or other
permanent works which he has a right to construct, improve or maintain;
2. Depositing any materials on the bank or in the bed of any stream for the purpose of
reclaiming land or for supporting, repairing or protecting the bank or bed of such
stream provided such materials are not capable of polluting such stream;
3. Putting into a stream, any sand or gravel or other natural deposit which has flowed
from or been deposited by the current of such stream;
4. Causing or permitting, with the consent of the State Board, the deposit accumulated
in a well, pond or reservoir to enter into any stream.
In case of offences committed by corporations, the Water Act specifies that in the
event any offence is committed by a company, every person who was directly in the
charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company (at the time
the offence was committed) together with the company shall be liable to be proceeded
against and punished accordingly. However, it also provides that no person shall be
held guilty in the event it is proved that the offence was committed without the
knowledge of such person or despite exercising all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence. The scope of Section 47 of the Water Act was discussed
at length by the Patna High Court in Mahmud Ali v. State of Bihar And Another.21
Looking at the scheme of Section 47, the Court said that Section 47(1) creates a
deeming legal fiction whereby every person who is in charge of or responsible to the
company for the conduct of its business becomes automatically guilty of the offence
21

AIR 1986 Pat 133

18

committed by such a company and is liable to be proceeded against and punished

accordingly. No other overt act or direct commission of the offence by such a person
is necessary barring the factum of being in charge of the company or responsible
thereto for the conduct of its business.
Once the allegation is leveled or established, then by a fiction of the law every person
in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business is, in the
eye of law, deemed to be as guilty of the offence as the primal offending company.
However, this strict rule is tempered and softened by the Proviso to Section 47(1).This
lays down that such a person may wriggle out of the liability if he proves that the
offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to
prevent the commission of the offence. The burden of proof is clearly laid upon such a
person and it is thus plain that the proviso is a rule of evidence that reverses the
ordinary mandate of criminal liability that the burden of establishing the offence lies
on the prosecution.
The Water Cess (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1977 was adopted by the
parliament to provide funds for the Central and state pollution control boards. The Act
empowers the Central Government to impose a Cess on water consumed by
industries.

BIBILIOGRAPHY-

Books:
1. Shyam Diwan and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in
India, Cases, Materials and Statutes, 2nd ed., 2008, Oxford.
2. P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India, 3rd, 2008, Lexis Nexis.

19

3. Dr. Sukanta K. Nanda, Environmental Law, Reprint 2007, Central Law

Publishing.
4. S. C. Shastri, Environmental Law, 3rd ed., 2008, Eastern Book Company.

Dictionaries:
1. Blacks Law Dictionary
2. Concise Law Dictationary, Lexis Nexis

Statutes:
1. Environment (Protection) Act of 1986
2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974.

20