The Water Laboratories and the Analysts

Sub-section (3). Without prejudice to section 12(3), the Central Board or a State Board may by notification, and with the approval of the Central or State Government, appoint persons with the prescribed qualifications to be Board analysts for the analysis of samples sent to a laboratory established or recognised by that Board.

So the vocabulary is exact and it is examinable.

Both must have the prescribed qualifications, and both are appointed by notification.

Where the two kinds of analyst appear in the earlier sections is worth tracing. Under section 21(3)(e) and section 21(4) a sample goes to the section 51 or 52 laboratory, and the Government analyst reports. Under section 22(1) a sample sent to a laboratory established or recognised by a Board is analysed by a Board analyst appointed under section 53(3).

Section 54: the report proves itself

Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Government analyst or, as the case may be, a Board analyst may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act.

"Purporting to be". The report proves itself. There is no need to call the analyst to prove his signature or his report.

"May be used as evidence of the facts stated therein". Not merely of the fact that a report was made, but of the facts stated in it, that is, of the composition of the effluent.

"In any proceeding under this Act". The section works in proceedings under this Act. It says nothing about a civil suit for damages, where the ordinary law of evidence applies.

And the section does not stand alone. It gives effect to a report only where the sample that produced it was properly taken, because section 21(2) makes the analysis of an improperly taken effluent sample inadmissible altogether. A report of an inadmissible analysis is not saved by section 54.

Section 55: local authorities to assist

All local authorities shall render such help and assistance and furnish such information to the Board as it may require for the discharge of its functions, and shall make available for inspection and examination such records, maps, plans and other documents as may be necessary.

Short, and useful in practice. A Board investigating a discharge into a municipal sewer needs the corporation's drainage plans, and section 55 entitles it to them.

A worked example

A Board takes an effluent sample. The occupier is present and asks for it to be divided, so two sealed and countersigned containers are made. One goes to the Board's own recognised laboratory and the occupier sends his part to the State Water Laboratory. The Board's analyst reports chemical oxygen demand above the standard; the State Water Laboratory reports it below.

Whose report prevails? The State Water Laboratory's. Section 22(4) provides that on any inconsistency, discrepancy or variation between the result of a laboratory established or recognised by the Board and one established or specified under section 51 or 52, the report of the latter shall prevail.

Does the Board's report have to be proved by calling its analyst? No. Section 54 lets a document purporting to be a report signed by a Board analyst be used as evidence of the facts stated in it. The same is true of the Government analyst's report. Section 54 is what gets both into evidence; section 22(4) is what decides between them.

And if the officer had not served the notice under section 21(3)(a)? Then the analysis of the effluent sample would be inadmissible under section 21(2), and section 54 would have nothing to operate on.

Distinctions

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean the Government must build a laboratory. It may specify an existing laboratory or institute.

It does not mean a Board analyst is a Government analyst. They are separately defined, separately appointed and appear in different sections, and section 22(4) turns on the difference.

It does not mean a report is conclusive. Section 54 makes it usable as evidence of the facts stated in it, which is a rule of admissibility and of proof, not a rule that the facts are established beyond contradiction.

It does not mean section 54 rescues a bad sample. Section 21(2) makes the analysis inadmissible in the first place.

Quick revision

• 51 and 52: the Central and State Governments may establish or specify a Central Water Laboratory and a State Water Laboratory, and make rules on their functions, the procedure for submitting samples, the form of report and the fees.
• 53(1) and (2): Government analysts, appointed by the Central or State Government by notification, with the prescribed qualifications, for samples sent to a section 51 or 52 laboratory.
• 53(3): Board analysts, appointed by a Board by notification with the Government's approval, for samples sent to a laboratory the Board established or recognised.
• 54: a document purporting to be a report signed by a Government analyst or a Board analyst may be used as evidence of the facts stated in it in any proceeding under the Act.
• 22(4): on a discrepancy the section 51 or 52 laboratory's report prevails over the Board's.
• 55: all local authorities must assist the Board and produce records, maps, plans and documents.

Test yourself

1. Distinguish a Government analyst from a Board analyst. A Government analyst is appointed by notification by the Central Government under section 53(1) or by a State Government under section 53(2), and analyses samples sent to a laboratory established or specified under section 51 or section 52. A Board analyst is appointed by notification by the Central Board or a State Board under section 53(3), with the approval of the appropriate Government, and analyses samples sent to a laboratory established or recognised by that Board. Both must have the prescribed qualifications, and the distinction matters because of section 22(4).

2. What does section 54 do, and what are its limits? It provides that any document purporting to be a report signed by a Government analyst or a Board analyst may be used as evidence of the facts stated in it in any proceeding under the Act, so the report proves itself without the analyst being called and proves the composition of the sample rather than merely the fact of a report. Its limits are that it operates in proceedings under this Act, that it makes the report usable evidence rather than conclusive proof, and that it has nothing to operate on where section 21(2) has made the analysis inadmissible.

3. Why does the Act create a Government tier of laboratories when the Boards have their own? Because a Board is both the regulator and the prosecutor, so its in-house laboratory cannot be the final arbiter of a dispute with the person it is regulating. Section 22(4) accordingly provides that where the result of a Board laboratory and that of a laboratory established or specified under section 51 or 52 are inconsistent, the latter prevails, and sections 51 to 53 are the machinery that makes that independent tier exist.

4. What does section 55 entitle a Board to, and why is it useful? It requires all local authorities to render such help and assistance and furnish such information as the Board requires for the discharge of its functions, and to make available for inspection and examination such records, maps, plans and other documents as may be necessary. It is useful because a discharge into a municipal sewer cannot be traced without the corporation's drainage plans, and section 55 puts the corporation under a duty to produce them.