Skip to main content

Followers

4. Madhya Pradesh Rice Mill Association (Plaintiff) Vs State of M.P. (Defendant)

AIR 1999 (1) MPLJ 315

Sub:- This case is based on the constitutionality of the consent fees and license fees being collected from the rice mills under the Water Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974.


Facts of the case: -

1. Petitioner, MP Rice Mills Association, Raipur, which is a registered society, has filed a special petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.


2. In this petition, the petitioner prayed that a consent fees and license fees are collected by the State of MP from the rice mill owners for renewal of the licence under the Rice Milling Industry Regulation Act, 1958 which is beyond the jurisdiction of Sections 4 and 5 of the Water Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1978.


3. Since, these rules should apply to only those industries which release polluted water streams whereas rice mills flow out the discharged water only on the land.


4. Rice mills do not create any type of water pollution and business of these mills is seasonal and it is only for 4 to 6 months in a year.


5. The industries dealing with 'Usna Rice Method' emit 3 to 8 thousand liter water for 3 to 4 hours per day which is not injurious to health and this water increases the fertility of the soil.


6. With these facts the plaintiff stated before the court that the State Government has no jurisdiction to collect con- sent fees and licence fees and it has no right to make rules in this regard.


Judgment - The Court, while refusing to accept all the pleas of the Petitioner, declined to allow the petition and no order was passed regarding fees. The petition was dismissed


Law points :-

1. The State Government has a jurisdiction to make rules re- garding consent fees and license fees.

2. The imposition of license fees and consent fees should not be unconstitutional and unreasonable.

3. Rice mills also come under the category of the industries and the provisions of the Water Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 will apply to these mills also.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Important Topics for Semester Exam in Environmental Law useful for LL.B Students.

  1.           State facts and the principles of law laid down in the case of Monera Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Society vs M.P. Board of Prevention of Water Pollution, 1993 M.P.L.J.270.   2.            Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3.            Discuss the various provisions Indian Constitution concerning Environmental Protection. What are the main features of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the provisions of penalties and procedure for violation of provisions, rules, orders and instructions. 4.            Describe the special provisions in the case of supersession of the Central Board or the State Board constituted under the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974. Explain in brief about the provisions regarding appeal and revision under this Act. 5.            Explain the objects and main provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollut
Post a Comment
Read more

1. A. Mackenzie vs. J S Izzak, AIR 1970 SC 1906

Ref : AIR 1970 SC 1906 Sub :- This case is based on Section 2 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Facts of the case :- 1. S.S. Dwarka is a ship whose owner is The British India Stream Navigation Limited and Mackenzie was its agent. 2. Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan was a class II seaman on this ship and who was missing from the ship. 3. It was clear from the medical log book that he had a chest pain on 13 December 1961 and he was suffering from it. 4. It was known from the medical checkup that nothing was unusual and medical officer gave him medicines and con- firmed his recovery and joining back on his duty next day. 5. It was known from the log book of the office on 16 Decem- ber 1961 that he was on the ship that day and he was seen on the bridge at 2:50 in the morning. 6. He was found missing at 6:15 in the morning. The master of the ship informed on the radio message at 7:30 in the morning that a seaman is missing between Khoramsar and Asahar and he is likely to be missing in the river.
Post a Comment
Read more