Saroj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9410 of 2017 ====================================================== Salimullah S/o Late Khalid Khan Resident of Nawgharwa Road Near Edare - Sharia, P.S. - Sultanganj and District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
District Magistrate, Patna.
3.
Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
4.
Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna. 5.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna City.
6.
S.H.O Sultanganj Police Station, Patna.
7.
Mahesh Prasad, S/o Late Ram Nath Ram, Residence/Mohalla- Khan Mirza, P.S.- Sultanganj, Patna.
8.
Md. Afzal, Son of Late Md. Idris, Resident of Mohalla- Garam Tola, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15858 of 2017 ====================================================== Saroj Kumar S/o Sri Lakhan Lal, Resident of Mohalla- Rajput Toli, Arfabad, P.O.- Gulzarbagh, P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
The Bihar State Pollution Control Board through Secretary, Patna, Bihar. 3.
District Magistrate, Patna.
4.
Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
5.
Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna. 6.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna City.
7.
S.H.O. Alamganj, Police Station, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9410 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Hansa Jha, Advocate Mrs. Shweta Pandey, Advocate Mrs. Manisha Pandey, Advocate Mr. Nirbhay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
2/7 Mr. Pratyush Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13 Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15858 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Shweta Pandey, Advocate Mrs. Shweta Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13 Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 28-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):-
3/7 On 2nd of March, 2020, we had passed the following order:- "From the affidavit dated 25th of February, 2020, sworn by Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta, Environmental Engineer, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, it is apparent that now action stands taken by the Pollution Control Board in closing down the units which were running without legal sanction. The chart submitted in a tabular form, indicating the
4/7 status of the units in the area in question, is reproduced herein under:- Sl. No. Particulars No. of Unit(s) 1.
Permanently Closed/Closed 2.
White category units 3.
Units operational with CTE and without CTO.
4.
Units operational without CTE and CTO 5.
Units operational with Consent obeying the consent conditions 6.
Units operational with consent but violating consent conditions We notice from Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the very same affidavit that directions for closing such of those units which are being run without legal sanction also stands issued. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the affidavit dated 25th of February, 2020 reads as under:- "8. That the units falling under Sl. no. 3, 4 and 6 are amenable to actions for violation of the provisions of the Air Act and the Board has already issued 'Proposed Direction for Closure'
5/7 to the 06 units falling under Sl. no. 3 vide its order dated 30-11-2019, & has issued closure direction and finally have filed complaint case against the units falling at sl. no. 4 of table above. The above mentioned actions were taken on basis of findings of the inspection carried out by the Board on 06-11-2019.
9. That with respect to 14 units identified by the Advocate commissioners which are functional with valid CTOs but violate one or more conditions of the CTO it is to be stated that 'Proposed Direction' under Section 31A of the Air Act, 1981, has been served upon 11 such units and with respect to remaining three units it is humbly submitted that unit at sl. no. 50, M/S Trishul Furniture, does not have a valid CTO and it has only taken 'Consent-to-Establish' (CTE) and as such 'Proposed Direction for Closure' has been issued against this unit vide order dated 05.02.2020. Unit at sl. no. 65, M/S Top Steel falls in 'White Category' and as such it is exempted from consent mechanism. Unit at sl. no. 60, M/S Ideal Steel, has already been served with 'Closure Direction', however, during inspection it was found to be operational and as such a complaint case will be instituted against it.
10. That with respect to 4 units identified by the Advocate commissioners, which were found to be operational without consents, it is humbly submitted that 'Proposed Direction for Closure'
6/7 has been issued against two such units and Closure Direction' has been issued against two such units and complaint case has also been instituted against these two units."
Let action taken report with regard to the closing of such units be filed by the Pollution Control Board as also by the respondent-State.
We further direct that henceforth the Pollution Control Board shall not issue any No Objection Certificate for establishing any unit in the area in question, which is residential. However, we clarify that No Objection Certificates may be issued strictly in accordance with law. Parties to exchange the pleadings within one week. List on 04.05.2020."
Today, a supplementary counter affidavit stands filed on behalf of the Pollution Control Board, clearly stating that out of 124 units which were inspected, 77 units were closed and are non-functional. With respect to the other units, action in accordance with law stands taken.
In this view of the matter, we are inclined to close the present proceedings further directing the Pollution Control Board to carry out periodical inspections for checking as to whether any unauthorised and illegal activity, commercial in
7/7 nature, is being carried out in a residential area. Equally, it is open for the petitioners to agitate the issue afresh with the authorities, including the Pollution Control Board.
Needless to add, the Pollution Control Board shall not grant any N.O.C. with respect to any industry which is not permissible to be established or made functional in a residential area.
The present application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ) (S. Kumar, J) Amrendra/PKP AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 30.06.2022 Transmission Date