(1.) Introduction
(2.) The case of the Petitioners broadly stated is that the residential and commercial shopping complexes and shopping malls are not covered under either the Water Act or the Air Act. Therefore there was no need for any of these Petitioners to have obtained from the DPCC either prior consent to establish under Section 25 of Water Act or prior consent to operate under Section 21 of the Air Act. The case of the DPCC is that the activity of construction of commercial complexes, shopping malls and even residential complexes is covered under both the Air Act and the Water Act and the failure to obtain prior consent to establish or prior consent to operate makes the petitioners liable under either or both Acts. For complexes where the built up area is over 20,000 sq.m, the stand of the DPCC is that the mere obtaining by such builders of EIA clearance from the MoEF will not obviate the need to obtain separate prior consents from the DPCC under the Water Act and Air Act. Background to the Water Act and amendments
(3.) The first issue to be considered is the applicability of the Water Act to the complexes in question. Emphasis has been placed by both sides on the background to the enactment of the Water Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons (SOR') to the Water Act as it was first enacted on 23rd March 1974 referred to a Committee set up in 1962 to draw up a draft enactment for the prevention of water pollution. The SOR noted that "the problem of pollution of rivers and streams has assumed considerable importable and urgency in recent years as a result of the growth of the industries and the increasing tendency to urbanization." The Report of the Committee was circulated to the State Governments and was also considered by the Central Council of Local Self-Government. Based on the recommendation of the Central Council a draft bill was prepared. The Bill was passed by both the Houses of Parliament and received the assent of the President in 1974.