All India Bar Examination (AIBE) 3-III Previous Year Question Papers with Answers

Practice Mode:
97.

In the course of its regular operation, Company A was releasing untreated effluents into a nearby river, thereby harming the wildlife in and around the river. A concerned citizen informed the relevant State Board of this polluting activity. The State Board immediately issued directions to discontinue the supply of electricity to Company A. In light of these facts, which of the following options is the most accurate?


Principle :

Section 32 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 empowers. State Boards to issue direct orders to polluters if the pollution arose from any accident or unforeseen act. Section 33A of the same legislation provides State Boars the power to issue directions for closure of a polluting industry and also for the disconnection of electricity, water, and other services, in the case of persistent defiance by such industry.

A: The State Board was acting within its powers to issue directions under Section 32 since there was harm being caused to the wildlife.
B: The State Board was acting within its powers to issue directions under Section 33A since disconnection of electricity is specifically provided under that of provision.
C: The State Board was not acting within its powers either under Section 32 or Section 33A, as neither was there any unforeseen event or accident nor was there a persistent defiance by Company A.
D: The State Board has not adequately utilised its powers under Section 33A, since it could have issued orders for the closure of Company A, which would have been much more effective in stopping the pollution.
E: The State Board did not have the power to issue orders either under Section 32 or Section 33A, since the information about company A was provided to them by a concerned citizen who was not directly aggrieved by the pollution in question.

The answer is: B

<< Previous Question
Next Question >>

Explanation

The correct option is:

B: The State Board was acting within its powers to issue directions under Section 33A since disconnection of electricity is specifically provided under that provision.

Explanation:

According to the provided principle, Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 empowers State Boards to issue directions for the closure of a polluting industry and also for the disconnection of electricity, water, and other services, in the case of persistent defiance by such industry.

In the scenario described, Company A was releasing untreated effluents into a nearby river, which was harming the wildlife. This pollution was not a result of any unforeseen event or accident, but rather a continuous and harmful activity by Company A. Therefore, the State Board was justified in taking action under Section 33A, which specifically allows for the disconnection of electricity and other services in cases of persistent defiance by a polluting industry.

Option A suggests that the State Board was acting under Section 32, which pertains to unforeseen events or accidents, but in this case, the pollution was not the result of an accident or unforeseen act.

Option C suggests that the State Board was not acting within its powers under either Section 32 or Section 33A, but this is not accurate, as Section 33A clearly provides for actions in cases like this.

Option D suggests that the State Board could have issued orders for the closure of Company A, but the disconnection of electricity is a valid and effective action to stop the pollution and is explicitly allowed under Section 33A.

Option E suggests that the State Board did not have the power to issue orders because the information was provided by a concerned citizen, but this is not a valid limitation under the mentioned sections of the Act.