ORDER G. Rohini, J.

1. This Writ Petition, by way of public interest litigation has been filed by the Forum for Better Hyderabad (Confederation of Voluntary Organizations of Hyderabad), represented by its Chairman Captain J. Rama Rao, seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in examining and then permitting the proposal to set up International Airport in the prohibited catchment area of Himayatsagar situated in Ranga Reddy District as unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 111 M.A dated 8-3-1996 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M. V. Naidu, (2002) 2 SCC 62.

2. The facts which gave rise to the cause espoused in this Writ Petition may be noted in brief.

On the basis of an interim report dated 29-12-1993 furnished by the Committee of Experts constituted by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Hyderabad suggesting ways and means to monitor the quality of water in the two reservoirs namely Himayatsagar and Osmansagar, which are the main sources of drinking water supply to the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 192 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (A-2) Department dated 31-3-1994 prohibiting industries and various developments within 10 K.Ms. radius of Himayatsagar and Osmansagar lakes. Thereafter on receipt of the second interim report of the committee the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 111 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (II) Department dt. 8-3-1996 reiterating the prohibition imposed in G.O.Ms.No. 192. As per G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996 polluting industries, major hotels, residential colonies or other establishments that generate pollution in the catchment area of the lakes up to 10 K.Ms. radius from full tank levels of the lakes as per the list in Annexure-l, are prohibited. There is also a total prohibition of location of industries in the prohibited zone. In the Annexure-l, 84 villages situated in Moinabad, Shamshabad, Kottur, Rajendranagar, Shankarapalli and Chevella Mandals, which fall within 10 K.Ms. catchment area of Himayatsagar and Osmansagar lakes are included.

3. That apart, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2) and (1)(v) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule 5 (3) (d) of the Environment Protection Rules 1986 issued Environment Impact Assessment Notification vide SO 60 (E) dated 27-1-1994 directing that expansion or modernization of any activity listed in Schedule I to the said notification shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless it has been accorded environmental clearance by the Central Government in accordance with the procedure specified in the said notification. Schedule I enumerates 30 Industrial/Project Activities, which includes "Ports, Harbours and Airports" under item III.

4. While so, in this Writ Petition the main allegation of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that a major part of the proposed international Airport at Shamshabad in Ranga Reddy District falls within the catchment area of Himayatsagar lake which is a prohibited area as per G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996, the respondents are proceeding with the activity of establishing International Airport at Shamshabad in Ranga Reddy District, unmindful of the fact that it may result in pollution of major drinking water source to the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. .

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is pleaded that as per the Explanatory note regarding the Impact Assessment Notification dated 27-1-1994, in addition to the application from as per Schedule-II to the notification, the project proponents are required to furnish Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report and details of Public Hearing; Risk Analysis Report; and NOC from State Pollution Control Board and other information mentioned therein. That apart, as per the amendment proposed by Notification S.O.1043 (E) dated 26-9-2002 the greenfield airports require site clearance from the Ministry of Environment and forests, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as "MOE and F, GOI"). As per this, the project proponents are required to intimate the location of the project site to MOE and F, GOI, while initiating investigation and surveys. The petitioner also states that as per the application form given in Schedule II to the notification the particulars of alternate sites examined and the reasons for selecting the proposed site and the conformance to stipulated land use as per local land use plan are required to be provided.

6. It is alleged that the State Government ignored the aforesaid requirements and had gone ahead with the identification of sites and final selection of the project site. According to the petitioner the Air Port is a major source of pollution as recognized by the Government of India and needs a full fledged environmental clearance, but the Rapid Environment Impact Assessment (for short "REIA") prepared after final selection of the project site failed to deal with the conformance to the local land use plan as per G.O.Ms.No. 111 and the environmental impact on the natural resources namely water bodies. It is specifically alleged that the REIA regarding setting up of International Air Port at Samshabad, R.R. District does not refer to G.O.Ms.No. 111 at all.

7. It is further alleged that when G.O.Ms.No. 44 dated 14-6-2000 was issued regarding Mega Infrastructure Projects including Hyderabad International Air Port, the petitioner organization protested and gave a number of representations stating that out of 5000 acres identified for the Air Port Project, 2000 acres fall in the catchment area covered by G.O.Ms.No. 111, however, the REIA has been submitted ignoring G.O.Ms.No. 111 and the A.P. Pollution Control Board also failed to adhere to the relevancy of G.O.Ms.No. 111 and granted consent for Establishment (CFE) on 18-1-2003. It is contended that the public hearing conducted by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy is only an eyewash and public hearing must have been conducted at Hyderabad, since it is the city based citizens who are invariably affected by the pollution to Himayatsagar. It is stated that even their subsequent representation dated 12-1-2003 made to the Member Secretary, A.P. Pollution Control Board was not considered and the CFE Committee of the Board in its meeting held on 17-1-2003 approved the revised proposal for setting up International Air Port in the prohibited catchment area of Himayathsagar to the extent of 2200 acres falling within the limits of Shamshabad, Rusheedguda, Gollapallikalan and Gollapalli Khurd of Shamshabad Mandal which are among the 84 prohibited villages listed in Annexure-I of G.O.Ms.No. 111 dt. 8-3-1996 and issued CFE dated 18-1-2003.

8. In the additional affidavit dt. 9-2-2003, the petitioner has specified the alleged pollution potential activities of the Airport as under:

(a) The taxic emissions from the aircraft engines, even after incorporating latest technological advances, which burn thousand of litres of gasoline while landing and taking off. The water bodies in the vicinity of airports get contaminated due to acidification of the emissions from the aircraft.

(b) Storm water run off from airfield paved areas like runways, taxiways, parking aprons etc., combines a variety of and concentration of non-degradable and toxic heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and petroleum compounds. These pavements provide large wide area (non-point source) contamination of drinking water sources through rain water runoff, which a major contaminant of water bodies.

(c) The passenger terminal building of the airport, with an area of 67,500 sq. mtrs to cater for peak hour passengers of more than 3000 is much more polluting than a major hotel, which is prohibited by G.O.Ms.No. 111.

It is also specifically alleged that the following polluting activities continue to be located in the 10 K.M. zone:

(a) one full runway (along with taxi ways etc.,)

(b) Half of 2nd runway;

(c) Main terminal building;

(d) Taking off and landing of major aircrafts.

9. The petitioner contends that both the CFE dated 18-1-2003 granted by the A.P. Pollution Control Board and the Environmental clearance dated 6-3-2003 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest ignoring the above violations are not valid and thus prays to declare that the International Airport cannot be established in the prohibited area of 2,200 acres in the limits of the above said four villages of Shamshabad Mandal.

10. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by the Government of A.P., the A.P. State Pollution Control Board and the Union of India denying all the allegations made by the petitioner and explaining in detail the measures taken at different stages to ensure the protection of lakes in question and to avoid any probable pollution.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri S.V. Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent - A.P. Pollution Control Board and Sri T. Surya Karan Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent-Union of India.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned action of the respondents is not in conformity with the statutory provisions, apart from being violative of G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996, which mandates total prohibition of any polluting activity within 10 K.Ms. of the lakes in question. While referring to certain data published by National Resources Defence Council, USA, the learned counsel contends that if the toxic emissions produced by each aircraft as reflected in the scientific data is taken into consideration, there can be no doubt that the Airport is also a major polluting industry and the same shall be strictly prohibited within 10 K.Ms. radius. The learned counsel placed much reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M. V. Naidu and Ors. (1 supra) and contended that there cannot be any deviation from the precautionary principle as laid down by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel vehemently contended that both the Government of India and the A.P. Pollution Control Board miserably failed to consider the environmental impacts on the water bodies keeping in view the total prohibition prescribed under G.O.Ms.No. 111. The learned counsel submits that from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government as well as the Pollution Control Board it is clear that some of the activities of the proposed Airport which cause pollution continue to be located within the prohibited 10 K.Ms. zone and therefore notwithstanding the so called technological developments and the measures taken for controlling the pollution, the respondents cannot be permitted to go ahead with the establishment of the International Airport.

13. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General contended that the A.P. Pollution Control Board while issuing the CFE and the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India while granting environmental clearance have taken into consideration all the necessary aspects in strict compliance with the environmental safeguards as well as the statutory requirement. It is contended that the setting up of the Airport and allied facilities according to the project plan will have no adverse affect of any kind on Himayatsagar lake and the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are baseless and absolutely no case is made out warranting interference of this court. The further contention of the learned Advocate General is that since the petitioner failed to avail the effective alternative remedy of appeal available under the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.

14. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the respective parties, certain facts as reflected from the counter affidavits of the respondents 1 and 2 with regard to the establishment of the Airport in question may be noted.

15. Setting up of an International Airport at Hyderabad which caters to a large number of passengers who travel abroad has been engaging the attention of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Union Government and the Airports Authority since 1995. Such Airport is also being planned at Bangalore and some other places. The process of selecting suitable site has been going on for several years. Different sites were provisionally chosen and the present site is selected ultimately after shortlisting by the Site Selection Committee. The Ministry of Civil Aviation constituted a High Level Committee on 14-7-1998 including representatives from the Airports Authority of India, Government of A.P., Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Environment, India Airlines, Air India and Director of Hyderabad Airport to examine the proposal and choose the site. This team of officials after examining all relevant aspects including technical feasibility recommended that the International Airport might be constructed at Shamshabad. They took into account inter alia, the aerial survey report, runway orientation, aeronautical aspects, adequacy of access by rail and road, extent of contiguous land availability, obstacles, reserve forests, extent of population requiring displacement, rehabilitation and other features relating to this site. This recommendation was made on the 19th of November 1999. Thereafter the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation communicated its approval for the construction of a new International Airport at Shamshabad vide its letter dated 29-5-2000. Thereafter, various steps were taken. It was estimated that about 5000 acres of land was required for this mammoth project, the estimated cost of the project is Rs. 1300 crores. 1,500 acres of Government land was available out of 5,000 acres identified and the remaining 3,500 acres of private land was available. The acquisition proceedings are completed except in regard to 218 acres. About Rs. 124 crores has been disbursed to the owners as compensation. These activities have been going on without any public protest since some years.

16. The counter also shows that on 23-11-2000 a memorandum of understanding was signed between Airports authority of India and the Government of A.P. for joint venture development of the International Airport in collaboration with a private developer who had been earlier chosen after issuing a global notification dt.24-11-1999 through national news papers calling for applications from entrepreneurs. The company named as Hyderabad International Airport limited has also been incorporated under the Company's Act on 7-12-2002. An application dated 16-9-2002 for No Objection Certificate and seeking consent for establishment was submitted to the A.P. Pollution Control Board under Section 25 of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1981. In pursuance thereof having considered all the aspects the Board granted CFE dated 18-1-2003 subject to certain conditions and thereafter the Government of India granted Environmental Clearance Certificate dated 6-3-2003.

17. Earlier vide G.O.Ms.No. 352, MA, dated 30-7-2001, a separate Hyderabad Airport development Authority was created under the Andhra Pradesh Urban Area Development Act, 1975 to promote and regulate the developments in the area concerned, including 89 villages. That authority is preparing a master plan for promoting and regulating development of the 458 sq. Kms (1,13,000 acres) of area including the new Airport.

18. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the A.P. Pollution Control Board shows that having received the application of the 2nd respondent dated 16-9-2002 for grant of consent for establishment of International Airport at Shamshabad together with the Environment Impact assessment and Executive Summary of the Project, the application was forwarded to the Regional Officer Pollution Control Board on 8-11 -2002 to process the application after conducting public hearing as per the environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 27-1-1994. On 25-11-2002 the District Collector constituted the public hearing panel consisting of eight members. The notice of public hearing was published on 27-11-2002 in the Hindu and Eenadu, which are published from Hyderabad and have wide circulation in the twin cities. Wide publicity was also given in the locality about the public hearing to be held on 28-12-2002. Thereafter, public hearing was conducted on 28-12-2002 at the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad, which was attended by a large number of people from all walks of life including nongovernmental organizations and particularly a representative from the petitioner-Society. The aspects relating to pollution potential, safety measures, environmental impact and various measures proposed to be taken to protect the environment were thoroughly discussed in the public hearing. There was no objection for establishment of International Airport at Shamshabad.

19. The counter-affidavit of the A.P. Pollution Control Board also shows that on 30-12-2002 the application of the 2nd respondent was placed before the technical committee constituted under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Committee after elaborately considering the details submitted by the applicant suggested that the 2nd respondent should be directed to submit revised plans shifting south ward the location of the run-way to provide more area beyond 10 K.Ms. line to accommodate polluting activities. It is also stated that the polluting activities mainly effluent treatment plant, fuel storage tanks, maintenance workshops, Aircraft hangers, light kitchen, housing colonies etc., are to be located in north-east corner beyond 10 K.Ms. line. Accordingly on 4-1-2003 the 2nd respondent submitted revised layout plan and EIA to the pollution control Board. On 8-1-2003 the technical committee met again and considered the revised plan and recommended to the Board to process the application. The technical committee also imposed several conditions to be complied with by the applicant. The recommendations of the technical committee were placed before the CFE clearance committee and the said committee recommended for issuance of CFE/NOC stipulating several conditions as recommended by the technical committee. Ultimately the Pollution Control Board by order dated 18-1 -2003 issued the consent for establishment for development of International Airport with allied facilities specified therein subject to several conditions mentioned in Schedule A and Schedule B, annexed thereto. The said order was issued under Section 25 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) act, 1981 and the Rules made thereunder.

20. The counter filed on behalf of the 7th respondent-Union of India shows that after the A.P. Pollution Control Board granted CFE dated 18-1-2003 the matter was referred to the 7th respondent and in turn the same was placed before the Expert Committee for Environmental Impact Assessment of Infrastructure Development and Miscellaneous Projects, which is a scientific and technical body consisting of experts with diverse expertise in various aspects of environmental sciences such as Air, Water, Land and Noise Pollution, Environmental Engineering, Roads and Bridges, Earth Sciences, Economics, Urban Systems Development, Planning and Architecture etc., The said expert committee had detailed deliberations on the project in their meeting held on 28-2-2003 and 1 -3-2003 by duly considering the approval of Ministry of Civil Aviation for the Project, the clearances accorded by the State Government, State Pollution Control Board, the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, the questionnaire and the application submitted by the Project Proponent and recommended the project subject to fourteen specific conditions and seventeen general conditions to be strictly followed and complied with by the project proponent, which includes the concerns of Air, Water, Land and Noise Pollution as well as to follow the State Government Orders and the relevant Supreme Court Judgments. It is stated that the said Expert Committee after considering the Supreme Court's Judgments and the relevant Government Orders and the maintenance of pollution control standards at the liquid waste generating units such as flight kitchens, house colony, hangers, maintenance area etc., has chosen to impose special condition No. 4. It is also stated that apart from this the Expert Committee also considered the Hyderabad area, Local Weather Conditions specifically to the application of environmental impacts as they vary depending on climate also -tropical, sub-tropical, temperate and that of polar regions. Thus it is explained that the 7th respondent gave clearance for the proposed project after considering all the relevant aspects.

21. In the light of the above pleadings and the material on record, it is to be noted that the Government of A.P. decided to develop a new International Airport due to various constraints faced in the existing Begumpet Airport and cater to the growing needs of air traffic. The project has been approved by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India on 29-5-2000 after considering the recommendations of the High Level Committee regarding the site selected for the project. It is also not in dispute that Public Hearing for the proposed project was held on 28-12-2002 after wide publicity. The Public Hearing was conducted by a panel constituted by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy consisting of 8 members including the citizens of the surrounding villages. Thereafter the matter was considered by the technical Committee constituted under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 in detail. As directed by them revised plan was submitted on the basis of which ultimately the Technical Committee recommended to the A.P. Pollution Control Board to process the application. In pursuance thereof the CFE Clearance Committee considered the matter and on the basis of the recommendations of the technical committee the A.P. Pollution Control Board granted CFE/NOC dated 18-1-2003 stipulating several conditions. Thereafter the matter was considered by Expert Committee For environmental Impact Assessment of Infrastructure Development and Miscellaneous Projects and on the basis of their recommendations the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India accorded Environmental Clearance dated 6-3-2003 subject to strict compliance with the conditions and environmental safeguards specified thereunder. Thus it is clear that the project has been cleared after considering several aspects elaborately by Expert Bodies at different levels.

22. After careful consideration of the entire material on record, we are satisfied that the environmental clearance accorded by the Central Government is in accordance with the procedure specified in EIA Notification dated 27-1-1994. The Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment Report prepared in September, 2002 has been placed before us. It reveals that various environmental attributes during the construction and operation phase of the Airport have been studied and analyzed to estimate the overall impact on the surrounding environment. The potential impacts during construction and operational phases of the proposed Airport Project on various environmental components including Water and Air Environment are predicted and quantitatively/qualitatively evaluated and discussed. On the basis of the said Assessment Report several expert bodies examined the issues at different levels culminating into the environmental clearance by the 7th respondent. It is also not in dispute that a public hearing was held and even the representatives of the petitioner -Organization participated. A perusal of the proceedings of public hearing shows that even the effect of G.O.Ms.No. 111 has been considered in the deliberations at the public hearing. Thus it is clear that the respondents 1 to 3 and 7 are alive to the requirements of the laws enacted for protecting the environment and proceeded with the mammoth project in strict compliance with the statutory requirements and environmental safeguards. In the circumstances, the allegations of violation of land use plan and the procedure prescribed under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 27-1-1994 are unfounded and cannot be accepted.

23. However, the fact remains that there is a specific prohibition under G.O.Ms.No. 111 M.A. dated 8-3-1996 which exclusively deals with Himayatsagar and Osmansagar lakes. Clauses (i) and (f) of G.O.Ms.No. 111 are as under:

"(i) To prohibit polluting industries, major hotels, residential colonies or other establishments that generate pollution in the catchment of the lakes up to 10 K.Ms. from full tank level of the lakes as per list in Annexure-I."

(f) There shall be total prohibition of location of industries in the prohibited zone."

24. The allegation of the petitioner is that out of the site selected for the proposed Airport about 2,200 acres fall within the limits of Shamshabad, Gollapalli Kalan, Rashidguda and Gowlapallykand villages which are among the 84 prohibited villages listed in Annexure-l of G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996. According to the petitioner the prohibition imposed under G.O.Ms.No. 111 is total prohibition and under no circumstances there can be any deviation keeping in view the "precautionary principle" laid down by the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M. V. Naidu and Ors. (1 supra).

25. It is relevant to note that in the said case the Supreme Court was concerned with the correctness of an exemption granted to an industry by name Surana Oils and Derivatives India Limited from the G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996. It would be appropriate to note the basic facts in the said case in brief. In spite of the prohibition contained in G.O.Ms.No. 192 dt. 31-3-1994 prohibiting industries within 10 K.Ms. of the Himayatsagar and Osmansagar Reservoirs the said industry purchased land on 26-9-1995 situated within 10 K.Ms. of the Reservoirs. Initially the industry applied for consent from the A.P. Pollution Control Board in November, 1995 through the Industries Department of the State Government. The State Government by letter dated 28-11 -1995 recommended to the Government of India for grant or intent in relaxation of 10 K.Ms. rule subject to the industry obtaining NOC from the A.P. Pollution Control Board. The Government of India gave letter of intent on 9-1-1996 but required the industry to obtain no Objection Certificate from the Environmental Authority of the State. At that stage the Government reaffirmed the 10 K.Ms. prohibition in G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996. Thereafter the Pollution Control Board considered the application of the industry and rejected the same because of the 10 K.Ms. prohibition. However, the industry proceeded to obtain permission from the Gram Panchayat for establishing a factory and also obtained permission of the District Collector for change of land use and executed various civil works and thereafter applied to the A.P. Pollution Control Board for permission to establish the factory. In the application it was mentioned that one of the by-products of the industry was "glycerin, spent bleaching, earth and carbon and spent nickel catalysts". The A.P. Pollution Control Board once again rejected the application of the industry. Then the industry approached the State Government seeking exemption from the 10 K.Ms. rule contained in G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996 and the same was granted by the State Government on 3-7-1997 and thereby directed the A.P. Pollution Control Board to prescribe conditions for treatment/ disposal of solid wastes. However, the A.P. Pollution Control Board stuck to its decision and again refused NOC on 30-7-1997 relying upon G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996 and also upon the notification of the Government of India dated 1-2-1989 which showed this type of industry in its Red list. The Board categorically stated that it was not desirable to locate such an industry in the catchment area. Against the said order the industry preferred an appeal which was allowed by order dated 5-1 -1998. The order of the appellate authority was upheld by this court in W.P.No. 2215 of 1998. Then the matter was carried to the Supreme Court by the A.P. Pollution Control Board. Having considered several issues in detail the Supreme Court rendered the judgment on 27-1-1999. In the said decision (A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Naidu and Ors. ), the Supreme Court emphasized the need for scientific inputs before adjudicating complicated issues of pollution to environment and called for further reports from several experts on specific issues set out therein. Subsequently on receipt of the said reports the matter has been considered in detail in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M. V. Naidu and Ors. ((2001) 2 SCC 62). One of the specific points formulated was whether it was permissible for the State Government to issue an exemption for an individual hazardous industry within the area even if it be by way of asking the industry to provide safeguards. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court while taking note of the fact that the industry in question was one of the Red category industries as specified in the Government of India Notification dated 27-9-1988 and at any rate the same being an industry with high pollution potentiality, held that the safeguards suggested by the Board pursuant to the direction of the Government cannot be held to be adequate in the light of scientific material obtained by the court from three highly reputed sources. It is further held that in the facts of the case the Board could not be directed to suggest safeguards and there is every likelihood that safeguards could fail either due to accident as stated in the report or due to human error.

26. Now coming to the case on hand the question to be considered is whether the Airport has to be treated as a "polluting industry" to attract the prohibition under Clause (i) of G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996. It is true that Clause (i) also refers to "other establishments that generate pollution" but as can be seen from Clause (f) the total prohibition is only in respect of a polluting industry. As explained in the counter-affidavit of the respondents 1 and 2, it is to be noted that an International Airport consists of several buildings and several types of activities. Some of these activities do no cause pollution at all. Some activities have a potential for pollution by application of precautionary principle. For example the main building where passengers arrived and later emplaned has little or no pollution potential. Other activities like the area where foodstuffs are prepared and the Aircrafts serviced in the hangers etc., may cause a limited amount of pollution. Admittedly the initial proposals submitted by the proponent were revised as per the instructions of the A.P. Pollution Control Board, in the light of G.O.Ms.No. 111 and several activities which may generate pollution are located beyond 10 K.Ms. limit. Expert Committees have examined these issues with great care keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court. The questions, whether any of the activities continue to be located within 10 K.Ms. zone and whether the same is permissible would be dealt with us separately. However, on the basis of the material on record there can be no doubt to conclude that the 'Airport' is not a "polluting industry" which is totally prohibited under G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 8-3-1996. In these circumstances we are unable to appreciate the contentions put forth by the petitioner treating the "Airport" on par with a polluting industry with which the Supreme Court was concerned in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Naidu and Ors. (1 supra).

27. It is pertinent to note that in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M. V. Naidu and Ors. (1 supra), the Supreme Court while explaining the basis and content of the "precautionary principle" also referred to the new rule of burden of proof in the matter of environment pollution. The Supreme Court observed that it was for the industry to establish that there would be no danger of pollution to the two reservoirs even if the industry was established within 10 K.Ms. radius of the said reservoirs. In the said case on the basis of the expert opinions and exhaustive reports furnished by the National Environmental Appellate Authority, New Delhi (NEAA), Bombay University Department of Chemical Technology headed by Dr. Bhowmick, and the report of National Geo-physics Research Institute, Hyderabad the Supreme Court held that the industry therein failed to discharge the onus placed on it. Moreover in the said case the A.P. Pollution Control Board which is the environmental authority of the State itself rejected NOC to the industry in question. In spite of that exemption was granted by the State Government which was ultimately set aside by the Supreme Court.

28. In the case on hand, the A.P. Pollution Control Board having taken into consideration several activities of the proposed Airport thought it fit to grant the Consent For Establishment. As noted above the A.P. Pollution Control Board considered the proceedings of the public meeting and the matter was also considered at length by the Technical Committee consisting of several experts. Having noted the fact that some of the activities are likely to cause a limited amount of pollution the Technical Committee returned the initial plans. The additional counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent shows that the initial plans were returned for changes and then the plans were drastically revised. It is explained that the activities of the Airport fall broadly under two categories those which cause appreciable pollution and those which cause relative minor pollution or no pollution. While recasting the plans to pursue the "precautionary principle" all those activities such as hotels, flight kitchens, fuel storage tank, aircraft hangers and maintenance workshops of Aircrafts, residential colonies, ETP and etc. which cause appreciable pollution have been shifted beyond the 10 K.M. limit. The activities in the main terminal building are no more than any other domestic building except that it is used for limited periods of time by large number of passengers. The effluent generated by the activities in the main terminal building which include the canteen and food service areas is conveyed through a specially designed safe sewage pipeline to locations outside the 10 K.M. and subsequently treated to conform to service water standards. No effluent remains within the 10 K.M. limit. Ultimately the waste water is intended to be used for green belt on the eastern side of the ridge after appropriate treatment to ensure that there is absolutely no scope for any adverse impact on the Himayatsagar lake.

29. Thus it is clear that the activities of the proposed Airport cannot be placed on par with an industry with high pollution potentiality and termed as hazardous by the Experts which was the subject matter of the decision in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M. V. Naidu. Thus the present case is clearly distinguishable on facts.

30. Then the only question that remains to be considered is whether the A.P. Pollution Control Board has adverted to the effect of permitting some of the activities within the prohibited area of 10 K.Ms. from Himayatsagar lake. The fact that (a) one full run-way (along with taxi ways etc.) (b) half of second run-way (c) main terminal building and (d) taking off and landing of major Aircrafts continue to be located within the prohibited zone of 10 K.Ms. has not been denied by the respondents. However the specific case of the respondents 1 to 3 is that the air pollution and noise pollution are the only two types of possible pollution and both the said aspects have been examined by the A.P. Pollution Control Board in detail and the same was found to be negligible and within the standards prescribed. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that all the toxic emissions released in the air in large quantities at the Airport in the close vicinity of drinking water source will settle down and contaminate the water making it totally unsafe for drinking purposes. The further allegation is that the run-off from Air filed pavements such as run-ways, taxi-ways, parking aprons etc. combines a variety and concentration of metals, particulate and petroleum components. According to the petitioner these pavements provide large wide-area (non-point source) contamination of drinking water source through rain water run-off which is a major contaminant of the water bodies. It is alleged that even if it seeps into the ground water it will affect the water of the lake.

31. In the additional counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the A.P. Pollution Control Board, it is explained that the Technical Committee was satisfied that the run-way and the terminal building though located within 10 K.Ms. radius are not going to cause pollution and thus recommended for CFE. So far as the alleged water pollution from the run-way, it is explained as under:

"On the run way there can be spillage of oil, fuel, sanitary wastes, metallic components and rubber pieces worn out from tyres. The project proponents have clarified their procedure of mopping to take care of these wastes. For run off rain water, Technical Committee of the Board, recommended that all run off rain water from the run way and taxi way and all paved areas shall be collected in the storm water drainage system slopped for draining towards eastern side of runway which will convey the run off, away from the Himayat Sagar Lake catchment and to a plant where it will be treated in API type oil and grease separator followed by sedimentation tanks and conveyed to the rain water recharge structures located outside Himayat Sagar catchment area i.e., 10 K.Ms limit. An appropriate blancing tank ahead of oil and grease separator is to be provided to ensure uniform flow, which will be sufficient capacity for maximum storm flow. Any over flow from the rain water recharging structures will reach the drainage course on the eastern side of the ridge and this drainage course will flow northwards and reach the Musi river and far away from the lake on the downstream side. Hence, there would be no possibility for the run off from the run way and paved area, ever reaching the Himayat Sagar lake and there will be no impact on the lake waters on account of the run off from the run way and taxi ways."

So far as the terminal building it is stated as under:

"The terminal building will have sanitary facilities and will generate potentially 260 M3/day, which includes the spent water in the canteen and food service areas. The proponent was directed to convey the sewage and spent water from the terminal building to the ETP located outside 10 K.M. line, through a suitably designed safe sewer system and to treat it to surface water standards. The same will be used for recycling and for greenbelt on the eastern side of the ridge.

Thus the waste water from the terminal building would have no chance of reaching the Himayat Sagar lake."

32. That apart, the data for calculating the resulting ground level concentrations due to take off and landing of Aircrafts has been furnished and it is stated that the AAQ at Himayatsagar lake on account of taking off and landing of Aircrafts in the International Airport can have no impact on the water quality in the lake either by settling of air borne matter or acidification uterines. It is also stated that a Hyderabad the absence of inversion and fair wind velocity shall eliminate any possibility of deterioration of lake water quality due to emission caused by movement of Aircrafts and other vehicles. It is further stated that though the location of the run-ways and main terminal building is marginally within 10 K.Ms. radius of the lakes the pollution potential is negligible and that the opposition of the petitioner for establishment of Airport at Shamshabad is not justified.

33. In the light of the explanation offered in the counter-affidavit which is based on the opinions of several Scientific and Technical Bodies consisting of experts with diverse expertise in various aspects of Environment Science, we do not find any merit in the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid activities of the proposed Airport which continue to fall within 10 K.Ms. zone. The expert opinion on the basis of the scientific findings cannot be reappraised by this court. It is well-settled that this court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sit in appeal over expert bodies as appellate authority and give opinion unless authorities failed to discharge statutory duty cast upon them under the relevant statutes. On the basis of the material on record we do not find any failure on the part of the competent authorities in discharging the Statutory duties nor there is any allegation of mala fides or any other extraneous consideration available on record.

34. It is also relevant to note that both the A.P. Pollution Control Board and the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India while according clearance stipulated specific conditions for compliance by the proponent. Some of the relevant conditions specified in the CFE of the A.P. Pollution Control Board dated 18-1-2003 are as under:

"2. Revised layout furnished showing all the pollution generating activities and units such as Hotels, Kitchens, fuel storage tanks, aircraft hangers and maintenance workshop of aircraft, residential colonies, effluent treatment plant etc., as shifted outside the 10 K.Ms demarcation shall be strictly adhered to.

3. All treated waste Water from ETP shall be used for industrial recycling and the treated water from STP shall be confirmed to surface water standards and these effluents shall be used for greenbelt on the eastern side of ridge. Under no circumstances these standards shall be relaxed.

4. Storm water from paved areas shall be passed through an AIP type oil and grease separator followed by sedimentation tanks and conveyed to the rain water recharge structure on the eastern side of the ridge. Location of these structures should be shown along with all the units and the ground water recharge pit design. Separated oil and grease should be disposed of as per Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989.

5. An appropriate balancing tank ahead of the oil, grease separator shall be provided to ensure uniform flow. It should be of sufficient capacity for the maximum storm flow. The storm water from previous areas should be conveyed to Rain Water Harvesting structures located suitably based on the topography of the site.

7. Fuel pipelines shall be made leak proof with necessary corrosion protected as per OISD 141 guidelines.

9. Measures to ensure that run off from urban sprawl does not reach the lake or streams joining the lake shall be taken.

11. There is need for regulating the urban sprawl by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) or Hyderabad Airport Development Authority (HUDA) and waste water discharges with provision for all infrastructure facilities such as water supplies, sewage, STP facilities, garbage collection and disposal, storm water drainage facilities provided in such a way that all waste water generated in the area and run off from the area is diverted to the down-stream of the lake into the surplus course, if necessary by constructing an interceptor channel to prevent its entry into the lake waters. All waste waters generated in the urban sprawl shall be appropriately treated to surface water standards."

35. Thus it is clear that the respondents are alive to the requirements of law and the clearance was issued by the Government of India after verifying compliance with the "precautionary principle" laid down by the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M.V. Naidu (1 supra). The fact that as per the instructions of the A.P. Pollution Control Board the original plan was revised to ensure that pollution potential activities and units such as hotels, flight kitchens, fuel storage tanks, aircraft hangers and maintenance works of aircrafts, residential colonies, effluent treatment plant etc., were carried out beyond the 10 K.Ms. limit is not in dispute. It is also explained by the respondents that for the surface runoff special designs have been incorporated to channel the drainage. The terminal building discharges would be carried by underground pipeline to locations beyond 10 K.Ms. It is also relevant to note that there is a natural ridge in the area where constructions are proposed, which prevents the total flow of water to the west. The very fact that the technical committee directed revision of plans and approved the plan only after it was revised in accordance with their directives demonstrates that adequate care has been taken by all concerned.

36. In these circumstances, the allegation of air pollution on the basis of the data in respect of Kennedy Airport in New York city appears to be exaggerated and may be irrelevant for the purpose of the issue in question. At any rate the material discloses that the aspect of probable air pollution has also been studied by the Technical Committees minutely and the same has been taken care of.

37. On a careful consideration of the material on record, we are satisfied that both A.P. Pollution Control Board and the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India have applied their mind to the various aspects of the matter and have cleared the project in question which is of great public importance. In the circumstances, and particularly keeping in view the need to strike a balance between the process of technological development of the society and the Environment, we are of the view that the matter does not warrant interference of this court in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

38. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.