Hanumantrao Maroti Patil v. The State Of Mah And ORS

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1241 OF 2013 HANUMANTRAO MAROTI PATIL

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra B. Narvade Patil. AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. S.G. Karlekar. Advocate for Respondent No.3 to 5 : Mr. P. P. More. Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. R. S. Swami, Advocate h/f Mr. Anil S. Bajaj.

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

DATE : 7TH JANUARY, 2016.

PER COURT:

1] The present petition is filed seeking directions against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to take appropriate action against the respondent No.6, for causing pollution. Petitioner has also challenged the consent and permission granted to respondent No.6 for running the stone crusher. 2] Mr. Narvade, learned counsel submits that the respondent No.6 had not taken appropriate steps pursuant to the permission granted to him for stone crushing. There were large scale illegalities. No measure for controlling pollution was taken by the respondent No.6. A show cause notice was issued by the concerned authority. After issuing show cause notice, no further steps are taken against the respondent No.6. According to learned counsel, the affidavit in reply filed by the Pollution Control Board also does not make it clear about the plantation of number of trees.

{2} 3] Mr. More, learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board submits that during the second visit on 22nd March, 2013, it is found that some measures were taken to control pollution by the respondent No.6 i.e. vibratory screen is covered with G.I. Sheet, the crusher is operated on D.G. set, water sprinkling arrangement is made. Learned counsel submits that after October, 2013, no licence is granted to respondent No.6 for stone crushing.

4] We have considered the submissions. As per the respondent Nos.2 to 5, licence of stone crushing in favour of respondent No.6 has not been renewed since October, 2013. Activity of stone crushing is stopped at the said spot. No doubt, Pollution Control Board is required to take action against the persons not conforming to the norms set out by it. In February, 2013, it was found by the Inspecting Team of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 that complete care has not been taken, wind breaking wall was not constructed, adequate tree plantation was not done,and metallic road within the premises was not provided. After that, some steps were undertaken, such as, water sprinkling arrangement and covered vibratory screen. 5] The Pollution Control Board is expected to see that the norms set out by it are adhered to, strictly.

As now, the licence is not renewed since October, 2013, we are not entering into other aspects of the matter. However, suffice it to state that the Pollution Control Board after granting licence for stone crushing and such allied activities, shall see to it that the Pollution Control norms are strictly adhered to.

{3} 6] With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

[A.M. BADAR] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE JUDGE grt/-