Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate for Petitioner in WP(C) vs DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE .......Respondent

malls or the residential complexes. Mr. Sorabjee submitted that the words "operation or process or any treatment and disposal system or any system of extension or addition thereto" following the word "indistry" have to beread ejusdem generis the word "industry" and therefore was not meant to cover an activity which is not an industrial activity. It is contended that there is no industrial activity that takes place in a shopping complex or mall or a commercial complex In other words, only industiies such as chemical industries, metallurgical, industry, engineering industry and on are meant to be covered by the Water Act. Consequently, it is argued that Section 25 (l)'of the Water Act is not attracted in any of the p'rescni cases. 0

10. It must be noticed that the definition of trade effluent' under Setiori 2(k)undérwent a change with the Amendment Act .No. 53 Of .1988. The definition of 'trade effluent' in the unamended Section 2(k) contained i.1i words "carrying on any trade or industry" following the words . .any premises used for.." This was. replaced by the words " .....om any! premises carrying on any industry, operation or process, or treatment and disposal system." The idea was to expand the use Of the premises and not limit it to an industry, but also any process or treatment and dipoal system. What stood excluded from the definitjon of 'trade effiuen.' was H "domestic sewage". The word 'sewage' itself has been defined lunde.i' Section 2(g) to mean effluent from any sewerage system or, sewage disposal works and includes sullage produced from open drains. The': woid sewage' when qualified by, the word domestic' should necessai i . (cid:9)Page 11 of 122 ., W.P. (C) No. 54312008 batch (cid:9) , (cid:9). (cid:9) . .............. T ..---- ............- -.---- .,---.-'- - .---.-...- (cid:9)-.... (cid:9)..... mean sewage produced from premises used for domestic purposes. The word "domestic" when contra-distinguished from the expression "trade" could mean a place used for residence rather than for business or trade.

11. However, the above definition of 'trade effluent' does not take a residential complex or even a commercial shopping complex or shopping mall out of the purview of Section 25 (1) of the Water Act. A careful reading of Section 25 (1) of the Water Act would show that it is intnded to cover not just 'industry' which discharges 'trade effluent' but .any 'prOcess or operation' that results in a discharge of 'sewage' not limited to trade effluent. The expression 'sewage or trade effluent' in Section 25 (1) (a) Water Act which follows the words 'operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system' or any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge..' is wide enough to cover all kinds of sewage and not just 'trade effluent'.• Likewise, the expressions 'process' and 'operation' is not meant to' be confined to 'industry' but to all kinds of processes and operations including those that take place in kitchehs ,and bathrooms of residential ornp1exes and retail sales' in shops ,and restaurants and activities in the rest rooms of commercial shopping complexes and malls.

12. Thedefinition of the words "operation" and "process" as occurring in the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionaty (Leslie Brown Ed.) are as follows: operation: An action, deed; exertion of force or influence; 'working, activity; an act of a practical or technical nature, esp one W.P..(C) No.543/2008 batch (cid:9), (cid:9) ' (cid:9)' ' ' (cid:9)' (cid:9) Pagel2ofl22 forming a step n a process i process: The action or fact of going on or being carried on; a continuous series of actions, events or changes; a systematic series of actions or operations directed at aparticular end.

13. Under Section 25(1) (b) Water Act if the operation, processor the process that is proposed to be established brings into use "any new or, altered outlet for the discharge of sewag" then Section 25(1) wi1lstand attracted. The proviso to Section 25(1) states that ,where the steps to establish an industry, operation or process have already commenced: before the commencement of.the 1988 Amendment Act,,such. steps may •continue for a period of three months and if, the, person who has taken such steps makes an application for consent within that period, 'till the disposal of such application. The proviso underscores the' mandatory nature of the requirement of even an ongoing construction to obtain prior consent to establish from the State PCC.

14. When the Water Act was first enacted in 1974, the scale of both • commercial and residential, shopping complexes as a result of urbanization was perhaps not anticipated There has been a dramatic increase in the number of residential and commercial shopping complexes that have éorne up in urban metropolises in the recent past. More significant is the size of such commetcial/shopping complexes. Having huge shopping malls having a built up area of 20,000 sq: M. is not an unusual feature as is evident in seven cases in the presnt batch o:f writ petitions. The volume of sewage that such residential and W.P. (C) No. 54312008 batch' (cid:9)' . (cid:9) Page 13 of 122 (cid:9) (cid:9) commercial complexes and shopping malls are likely to discharge into the sewage system would indeed be enormous. The rcognition of the, need to have the regulatory authority, in these cases the DPCC, to be approached. by the builders of such complexes and malls for prior consent to establish under the Water Act is consistent with the object of the Water Act as amended in 1988. The ultimate object is to ensure that there is effective, prevention and control of poIlution. Purposive cons fruction (cid:9). (cid:9) .

15. In the considered view of this Court, it is not pssible to place a narrow construction on the words "operation" and "process" occurring in Section 25(1) of the Water Act. The words 'operation or proçes" occurring in Section 25(1) (a) have to be given the widest posibe meaning and scope. This approach is consistent with the SOR of the, 198 amendments to the Water Act which make it clear that the legislative intent was to expand the scope Of the regulatory powers of the state PCC The principle of ejusdem keneris is therefore inapposite in the context. On the other hand the principle of purpdsive . construction commends itself for application In Anderton v Ryan (1985) 2 All ER 355, it was explained that: "Statutes should be given what has become knqwn as the purposive constru.ction, that is to say the Courts should identify tile 'mischief that existed before passing of the statute and then if rnor than one construction is possible, favour that which will eliminate the mischief so identified." In Pepper v. Hart (1993) .1 All ER 42, it was held: "The courts now adopt a purposive approach 'vhich 'seeks to give effect to the true purpose of legislation and are prepared to look at much. W.P. (C) No. 54312008 batch (cid:9) . (cid:9) Page 14 of 122 .. extraneous material that bears on the background against, which the legislation was enacted." This has been consistently followed by. our Supreme Curt in New India Assurance Co. Lt4. v. Nusli Neville Wadia