Patna High CourtCWJC/11285/2015dismissed

Indu Bhushan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-08-23Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11285 of 2015 =========================================================== Indu Bhushan Prasad, Advocate, son of Loknath Yadav resident of MohallaLakhisarai English ward no. 5, P.S.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.

2. The Chairman, Bihar State Pollution control Board, Beltron Bhavan, Shastri Nagar, Patna.

3. The member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Beltron, Shastri Nagar, Patna.

4. Ramanuj Mahto @ Anuj Kumar son of Late Basudeo Mahto resident of Mohalla- Lakhisarai English, P.S.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai.

5. D.M. Lakhisarai.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indu Bbushan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate For the Pollution Board :

Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent Board as well as the State.

2. Petitioner has sought a direction upon respondent no. 2 to take action against the respondent no. 4 for having allowed installation of mobile tower which was causing air pollution as the same is located next to the petitioner's dwelling.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Board wherein they have placed on record the report of two inspections of 15 KVA diesel generator set installed in the mobile tower located near

Patna High Court CWJC No.11285 of 2015 dt.23-08-2018 2/2 the petitioner's dwelling. The reports are dated 19.08.2015 and 24.11.2016. On both occasions inspection has revealed that the noise level as well as other emission from the DG set was within the permissible limit. No rejoinder/reply to counter affidavit has been filed.

4. In view of such findings placed on record by the respondent Board in the instant writ petition, no further order needs to be passed.

5. Writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Prakash/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date