If it is false that *no person can operate an industrial plant for the purpose of any scheduled industry in an air pollution control area without the prior consent of the State Board’, then, which of the following may be validly inferred ?

The question presents a logical negation of a universal negative statement. The original statement, 'No person can operate... without prior consent,' is a universal negative (No S is P). If this statement is false, its logical contradictory must be true: 'Some S is not P.' In this context, it implies that at least one person (someone) operates an industrial plant in an air pollution control area without obtaining the prior consent of the State Board. This aligns with the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which empowers State Boards to declare air pollution control areas and mandates prior consent for industrial operations . While the Act aims for the prevention and abatement of pollution through these boards , the falsity of the restrictive rule logically necessitates the existence of a violator or an exception where an industry is running commercially without the required authorization.

Sources

1. [1] Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 5: Biodiversity and Legislations > air (Prevention and control of Pollution) act, 1981 > p. 15