Decision-making – Industrial effluents polluting a river supplying drinking water Statement: Drinking water supply to New Bombay has been suspended by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board due to pollution of the Patalganga river from chemical-industry effluents. Courses of Action: I. Immediately order closure of the industries discharging effluents into the river. II. Treat river water appropriately before resuming supply. III. Conduct regular checks on the nature of effluents discharged by industries.

Introduction / Context:
The case involves a public-health safeguard: municipal water intake suspended due to chemical effluent contamination. We must determine the most reasonable immediate and ongoing actions without making unsubstantiated leaps.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Patalganga river is polluted by industrial effluents.
• Water supply has been halted for safety.
• Responsible regulator is already active.

Concept / Approach:
Immediate risk mitigation (treating contaminated water and ensuring safety before resumption) and institutionalised compliance monitoring are sound. Blanket immediate closure of all industries, without due process and specific culpability, is an overreach.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Environmental governance typically uses sampling, compliance mandates, and corrective timelines; emergency closures may apply case-by-case once violations are established.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I alone: Overbroad and unsupported.
• III alone: Misses immediate mitigation for safe supply.
• All: Includes the unjustified blanket closure.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating emergency cessation of supply with indiscriminate shuttering; overlooking due process.

Final Answer:
Only II and III follow