Shifas Mainland Health Care v. The Andaman And Nicobar Pollution Control Committee And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/189/2025 Shifas Mainland Health Care Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Pollution Control Committee and another Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents April 08, 2025 [SR] Item No.5 The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to consider the application dated 5th December, 2024 submitted by the petitioner, namely, Shifa's Mainland Health Care (hereinafter referred to as the firm) and to accord necessary consent to establish a health care facility clinic. Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the firm submits that in order to establish a health care facility in Port Blair, the firm firstly applied before the Directorate of Industries to be registered as a Micro, Small Scale Industries. Such registration certificate was duly issued by the competent authority and the firm was registered on 25th October, 2024.
Upon such registration, the firm filled up an application seeking no objection/ Consent to establish from the Andaman and Nicobar Pollution Control Committee (in short, ANPCC).
firm's land falls under 'Commercial Land use Zone' satisfying the requirement for commercial land use and the firm's application comes within caption 'Land Use Classification of the site' which includes 'Commercial use Zone', as would be explicit from the averments made in paragraph 18 of the writ petition. In view thereof, ANCC cannot insist for any land conversion certificate.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the minutes of the General Body meeting of District Registering Authority along with the other stakeholders, Mr. Kumar submits that the said Authority has expressed its opinion that without insisting upon technicalities, ANPCC can issue no objection certificate even on provisional basis.
Mr. Kumar submits that as the consent was withheld without any reason, a further representation was filed on behalf of the firm on 10th March, 2025 but in vain and as a consequence thereof, the firm is suffering insurmountable inconveniences for such delay in issuance of the no objection certificate.
Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior advocate enters appearance on behalf of the ANPCC and prays for leave to file an affidavit-in-opposition.
Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record, particularly the minutes of the meeting of the General Body, District Registering Authority under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner dated 27th December, 2025, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping
the writ petition pending and the issue needs to be relegated to ANPCC.
Accordingly, this Court directs the Chairman, ANPCC to consider the petitioner's online application dated 5th December, for no objection/Consent to establish and the representation submitted thereafter by the petitioner on 10th March, 2025 and to take a decision, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The Chairman, ANPCC shall also consider as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a conditional or provisional no objection/ Consent to establish may be granted to the firm.
The Chairman, ANPCC shall communicate the final decision to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
As the writ petition has been disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations leveled against the respondents shall be deemed to have been denied.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance of all formalities.
( Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. )