M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - (1.) On an earlier occasion, in this very case, this Court in A. P. Pollution Control Board (I) vs. Prof. M. vs. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718, (dated 21-1-1999) referred to the precautionary principle and the new rule of burden of proof in the matter of environmental pollution. This Court in that judgment emphasised the need for scientific inputs before adjudicating complicated issues of pollution to environment. The said approach of this Court was based upon contemporary trend in the adjudication of environmental matters in various countries and was not intended to restrict the powers of this Court under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to safeguard environment from pollution.
(2.) Our efforts to get at the best scientific evidence on the issues involved in the case, have yielded satisfactory results in the sense that we have today greater confidence about the correctness of our conclusions and further that this is a fit case for affirming the orders of the appellant (Andhra Pradesh Pollusion Control Board) not to grant consent to the seventh respondent (M/s. Surana Oils and Derivatives (India) Ltd.) under the statute for establishing its industry.
(3.) We are now more sure that, on facts, this is a pre-eminently fit case which requires grant of an injunction to prevent irreversible pollution to the drinking water reservoirs of Osman Sagar and Himayaat Sagar catering to the needs of over 50 lakhs people, in Hyderabad and Secunderabad.;