Supreme Court directs Collector to Monitor Water Usage for Industrial Purposes in Tamil Nadu (4 February 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 4 February 2019
Citation: M/S. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd. vs S. Joel & Ors. (2019) INSC 68
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can water, diverted from forest land for drinking purposes, be used for industrial needs? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on a case in Tamil Nadu where water meant for drinking was being used for industrial purposes. The Court directed the District Collector to oversee the allocation of water, ensuring drinking water needs are prioritized. This case highlights the delicate balance between industrial requirements and the essential need for drinking water.

Case Background

On 15 June 2004, the Government of India issued guidelines under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, regulating the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. These guidelines, clarified on 3 January 2005, allowed state governments to permit diversion of up to one hectare of forest land for public utility purposes, including drinking water. On 7 March 2008, the Government of Tamil Nadu approved the diversion of 0.055 hectares of forest land for the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Board) to construct an intake well for drinking water purposes. However, the TWAD Board was later found to be using this water for industrial purposes as well. This led to a complaint before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) by the first respondent, alleging misuse of the water resource. The Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) also noted that using the diverted land for both drinking water and industrial purposes was a violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) initially issued an interim order on 31 May 2017, directing that water drawn from the diverted forest land be used only for drinking purposes. This order was modified on 7 July 2017, to maintain the status quo that existed before the initial order, allowing water usage for industrial purposes, provided sufficient water was available for drinking. The NGT ultimately directed the TWAD Board to prohibit the use of water drawn under the forest clearance for industrial purposes, allowing it only for drinking. The NGT clarified that the water could be used for drinking purposes by housing colonies, schools, and hospitals, but not for industrial units. The matter then reached the Supreme Court through a batch of civil appeals.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and implementation of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) on 15 June 2004, clarified on 3 January 2005. These guidelines delegate authority to state governments to permit diversion of forest land up to one hectare for public utility purposes. The permissible activities include:

• Schools
• Dispensary/hospital
• Electric and Telecommunication lines
• Drinking water
• Water/rainwater harvesting structures
• Minor irrigation canal
• Non-conventional sources of energy
• Skill up-gradation/vocational training centre
• Power sub-stations
• Communication posts
• Police establishments

The guidelines specifically mention “drinking water” as a permissible use, which was the basis for the Tamil Nadu government’s approval on 7 March 2008. The core issue is whether the use of this diverted water for industrial purposes is in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and the guidelines.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (TWAD Board and Industries):

• The appellants argued that the permission granted on 7 March 2008, for the diversion of forest land for drinking water, did not explicitly prohibit the use of water for industrial purposes.
• They contended that after fully meeting drinking water requirements, surplus water was available, which could be allocated for industrial use.
• The TWAD Board submitted an affidavit stating that the water available in the dams was sufficient to meet the requirements for drinking, irrigation, and industrial purposes.

Arguments by the Respondent (Original Petitioner):

• The respondent argued that the diversion of forest land was specifically for drinking water purposes, and using it for industrial purposes violated the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
• They presented data from the India Meteorological Department showing that rainfall in Thoothukudi District was below normal, indicating a scarcity of water.
• They contended that there was a decline in water levels in the reservoirs, making it inappropriate to allow water for industrial use.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the water diverted from forest land, approved for drinking purposes, could be used for industrial purposes, considering the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the guidelines issued thereunder.

A sub-issue was also addressed which is:

• Whether the interim orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the subsequent stay order passed by the Supreme Court needed modification, given the water availability and the needs of both drinking and industrial sectors.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court primarily relied on the following legal provisions:

• The Forest (Conservation) Act 1980: The court considered the provisions of the Act, which regulates the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes.
• Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) on 15 June 2004 and clarified on 3 January 2005: These guidelines delegate authority to state governments to permit diversion of forest land for specific public utility purposes, including drinking water.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure that drinking water requirements are prioritized, while also addressing the needs of industrial units. The Court recognized the scarcity of water resources and the importance of adhering to the conditions under which forest land was diverted. The Court’s reasoning emphasized the following points:

• The original permission for diversion of forest land was explicitly for drinking water purposes, and any deviation from this purpose required additional approvals.
• The Court acknowledged the need for industrial water supply but stressed that it could not be at the expense of drinking water needs.
• The Court considered the data on rainfall and reservoir levels, indicating a potential scarcity of water in the region.
• The Court emphasized the need for a monitoring mechanism to ensure that the allocation of water is done judiciously.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the original permission did not explicitly prohibit industrial use. However, it rejected this argument, stating that the permission was specifically for drinking water purposes. The Court also considered the argument that surplus water was available for industrial use. However, it directed the District Collector to verify the availability of surplus water and make a decision on its allocation for industrial purposes, ensuring drinking water needs are met first.

The Court’s decision is based on a careful consideration of the facts and the law. The Court interpreted the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and the guidelines issued thereunder to mean that the diversion of forest land was permitted for specific purposes, such as drinking water, and any other use required additional approvals. The Court also considered the data on rainfall and reservoir levels, indicating a potential scarcity of water in the region.

“Both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court, the consistent position of the State Government as well as of MoEF&CC has been that Government of India delegated its authority under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 to the states to grant a diversion of forest land upto one hectare and for specified projects of a public utility. Among them is drinking water.”

“In our view, it would be necessary for this Court to put in place an administrative mechanism that would ensure that a decision to release water for industrial purposes is monitored by the Collector of the District who shall conduct a due verification of the data which is available with the TWAD Board. The Collector should independently assess the situation so as to ensure that the need for drinking water and irrigation is not compromised.”

“We reiterate that this should be without in any manner compromising the present and anticipated drinking water needs of the residents of the district concerned.”

Key Takeaways

• The judgment reinforces that diversion of forest land for specific purposes, such as drinking water, must adhere to the conditions of the approval.
• It emphasizes the priority of drinking water needs over industrial requirements.
• It establishes a monitoring mechanism through the District Collector to ensure judicious allocation of water resources.
• The judgment highlights the importance of obtaining necessary approvals for any deviation from the original purpose of land diversion.
• The judgment sets a precedent for similar cases involving the use of natural resources, particularly water, and the balancing of public and industrial needs.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Collector of Thoothukudi division must convene a meeting of concerned departments within one week to ascertain the availability of surplus water after meeting drinking water needs.
• The Collector must conduct a fortnightly review of the situation to determine if any further directions are needed.
• If surplus water is available, the Collector may allocate a suitable quantity for industrial purposes, without compromising drinking water needs.
• The State Government and TWAD Board must hold a joint meeting within two weeks to resolve issues regarding the proposal for dual use of water and forward it to MoEF&CC within three weeks.
• The competent authority must decide on the proposal within two months.
• Any allocation of water for industrial purposes in the meantime shall abide by the final decision of the Union of India.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the diversion of forest land for a specific purpose, such as drinking water, does not automatically permit its use for other purposes, such as industrial use. Any deviation from the original purpose requires additional approvals, as per the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and the guidelines issued thereunder. This case reinforces the principle that drinking water needs must be prioritized over industrial requirements when allocating water resources from diverted forest land. There was no change in the previous position of law but the Court clarified the existing position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case emphasizes the importance of adhering to the conditions under which forest land is diverted for specific purposes. The Court directed the District Collector to monitor the allocation of water, ensuring that drinking water needs are fully met before any water is allocated for industrial purposes. This decision underscores the need for a balanced approach to resource management, prioritizing essential public needs while also considering industrial requirements.