JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J.—This petition was registered on a representation made by the Estate Right Holders of mauza Nadhukar P.O. Basartpur Teh. Suni to the Chief Justice. The complaint is against the installation of stone crushers near the village. Before referring to the statements contained in the replies filed by the respondents it is necessary to mention that in "Court on its own motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh, C.W.P. No.51/ 93", a Bench of this Court gave certain directions by its judgment dated 26-8-1993. Pursuant to the said direction certain stone crashers which were at that time operating within the Shimla Environment Protection Zone had to be shifted and they had to be rehabilitated elsewhere. Directions No. 4 and 5 in paragraph 49 of the judgment are relevant and they read as follows : "4 The State Government is directed to rehabilitate respondents No.10 and 13 to 27 on alternative site(s) by granting all necessary permissions within a period of six months. 5. For making recommendations to the State Government in respect of alternative site(s) for the rehabilitation of respondents No.10 and 13 to 27, this Court set up a Committee comprising of Secretary (Industries) to the Government of H.P. as its Chairman and Secretaries of Public Works, Forest and Tourism Departments of the Government and the Secretary H.P. State Pollution Control Board as its members. This Committee will give its report to the State Government within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. The Committee will keep in view all mining laws, forest conservation and environment protection laws while making recommendations." 2. In compliance with the direction given by this Court a Committee mentioned in direction No. 5 inspected various localities and selected the present site, ultimately near the village Nadhukar which is about 39 Kms. from Shimla along the kacha road leading to village Nadukhar. It is stated in the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 that there are plenty of stones available and suitable for manufacture of grit in the area. from Shimla along the kacha road leading to village Nadukhar. It is stated in the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 that there are plenty of stones available and suitable for manufacture of grit in the area. It is also pointed out that the proposed site is not along the National Highway No. 21 and the sites are situate more than 50 metres from Shimla Bhsantpur Tatapani road It is also stated that the lessees shall develop their quarry roads from link road leading to village Nadukhar and not from the main road The map of the site was annexed to the reply as Annexure A. 3. One of the complaints of the villagers is that a Primary School building is situated near the proposed site. It is stated in the reply that the school is at a distance of 160 miters from the last boundary of the proposed site and there will be hardly any erractic sound pollution which can disturb the children at a distance of more than 160 metres It was also stated that during the inspection of the proposed site a safe distance between the school and the proposed site was very much kept in view It is further stated that the Government land in the said area has vast extension and only a small part of it has been allocated to the lessees and as such local people if they are having any rights—they can collect Daru fuel wood grass etc. from the remaining area as well as in the area which is not used by the lessees A reference is also made in the reply to the judgement of this Court in CWP No. 826/94 dated 29-9-1994 and it is stated that the recommendation of the Committee has been up-held in the said judgment 4. Thereafter, the owners of the stone crushers got impleaded them selves as party namely, respondents No 4 to 9 in the writ petition The court impleaded the Pollution Control Board of the State Geologist as respondents No. 10 and 11. 5. In the reply filed by the Pollution Control Board, it is stated that the operation of the stone crushing unit in the vicinity of the existing Primary School will lead disturbance to the students and will also distub the peaceful environment. 5. In the reply filed by the Pollution Control Board, it is stated that the operation of the stone crushing unit in the vicinity of the existing Primary School will lead disturbance to the students and will also distub the peaceful environment. It is averred that the uprooting of the green cover existing in the form of trees, bushes and grass will make the site open for soil erosion but the same can be prevented/controlled by better mining practices. It is also stated that the nearest house to the proposed stone crushes will be about 150 metres always and village Nadukhar will be at a distance of about 350 metres and that operation of 7 numbers of stone crushers at the proposed site will disturb the peaceful environment as existing today It is further averred that after considering the representation made by the people of the locality, the Pollution Control Board had written to the State Geologist to strictly adhere with the conditions of keeping the stone crushing unit at 500 metres away from the locality and the High Way. 6. In so far as this reply of the Pollution Control Board of the State is concerned we have several reasons no£ to accept the same on its face value. We have already referred to direction No. 5 in the judgment of this Court dated 26-8-1993 for constituting a Committee by the Government It is seen that the Secretary of the State Pollution Control Board is a member of the Committee It is that Committee which Inspected the site and ultimately chose the present site in which the stone crushers are proposed to be installed As member of the Committee, Secretary Pollution Control Board ought to have pointed out the objections which could be raised for installing stone crushers in the proposed site If he had not done so it was a gross dereliction of duty on his part. Geologist other hand there was no such requirement that the stone crushing unit should be installed 500 metres away from the locality. That statement in the present reply made by the Pollution Control Board is not reflecting the true situation. According to the reply the Pollution Control Board is said to have written to the State Geologist that the stone crushing unit should be 500 metres away from the locality. That statement in the present reply made by the Pollution Control Board is not reflecting the true situation. According to the reply the Pollution Control Board is said to have written to the State Geologist that the stone crushing unit should be 500 metres away from the locality. There is no reference in the reply as to whether such guidelines were in existence previously. If the Pollution Control Board has framed any such guidelines it should have been produced before the Court alongwith the reply and it should have been brought to the notice of the Committee which had inspected various sites for the purpose of rehabilitating the owners of the stone crushing units who were dislodged from Shimla Environment Protection Zone Hence we are unable to accept the bald statement contained in the reply of the Pollution Control Board Even on this date no document has been produced before us to show as to what guidelines have been framed by the Pollution Control Board with regard to installation of stone crushing units visa-vis inhabitants of a village. 4. On a direction given by this Court, the Secretary (Industry) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has filed an additional affidavit on 21st December, 1996 The relevant part of the said affidavit reads as follows : "4. That ia reply to the objection as raised in para 1 (b), It is submitted that the Primary School building is about 200 metres away from the nearest stone crusher and 400 metres radial distance in espect ot other proposed stone crushers. (a) The National Productivity Council has discovered that 80% gust pollution can be contained by simply enclosing certain operations. (c) As far as noise pollution is concerned, the following facts are important: (i) Noise does not accumulate with time. (ii) Noise falls rapidly with distance, (iii) Normal hearing level in human is 0-20 dB. (iv) Noise during normal human conservation is 60 dB, (v) Massive tree plantation (green belt) can attenuate noise level to 10 dB, normal range for hearing. (ii) Noise falls rapidly with distance, (iii) Normal hearing level in human is 0-20 dB. (iv) Noise during normal human conservation is 60 dB, (v) Massive tree plantation (green belt) can attenuate noise level to 10 dB, normal range for hearing. (vi) A belt of trees of about 50 metres width with varying heights would reduce the noise by 20 to 30 dB However, under Rule 21 (1) (viii) of the Himachal Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971 (framed under section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1986 the distance from building and inhabited site has been specified as 60 metres for mining operations Therefore, the disturbance to the vicinity from the crushing site within the permissible limit keeping in view, the said rule. 5. That in reply to para 1 (d) it is stated that uprooting of the green cover existing in the form of trees, bushes and grass will make the site open for soil erosion. The following safety measures shall be adopted : (a) Mainlining shall be carried out systematically, scientifically and in eco friendly manner. (b) Mining does not mean permanent loss of land for other uses. It holds potential for altered and improved land use (husbandry) apart from its restoration for agriculture or forestry. (c) A critical shortage of construction material can jeopardise the National priorities such as construction of buildings, laying of roads and other ancillary developmental works. (d) An helping attitude that environment is seen as providing as opportunity and not a threat. (e) Mining a tool of renegotiation of environment of the people, by the people and for the people. (f) Since mining and a forestation shall go hand in hand, the chances of scar formation, erosion are least. The Slope considerations are also favourable for mining. (g) Disturbed land is more water retentive The main cause is the excellent characteristics of mine spoils to be able to promote infiltration and thus decrease run off. (h) Section 4-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1986 is there is case is there is any degradation of environment or pollution beyond prescribed limits. 6. That in reply to para 1 (e) it is submitted that nearest house from the proposed crushers will be 150 metres, and village Nadukhar approximately 350 metres from the site of proposed seven stone crashers. 6. That in reply to para 1 (e) it is submitted that nearest house from the proposed crushers will be 150 metres, and village Nadukhar approximately 350 metres from the site of proposed seven stone crashers. In a hand out brochure published by the H.P. State Board for Prevention of Water Pollution in has been specified as under : (a) No Noise : Dull life (b) Less Noise : Better life. (c) More Noise : No life. The points enumerated above above and the provision laid down in section 4-A of the ibid Act, are there for stringent control of noise pollution The crushers are proposed in two clusters separated by a mining road (proposed) as per drawing No. GLG DRG. H.P. No 2519, dated 30-9-1994. The Government of India vide its Notification No GSR 422(E) and published in Gazette of India 19 5-1993 has suggested to adopt the following pollution control measures in respect of stone crushers : (a) Dust containment cum spression system for the equipment. (b) Construction of wind breaking walls (c) Construction of metalled roads within the premises, (d) Regular clearing of wetting of the ground within the premises. (e) Growing of green belt along the periphery. 7 As SI No.11 of Schedule I appended to the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 the following entry has been made : SI. No. Industry Parametres Standards 11 Stone Crushing Unit Suspended particulate matter The suspended particulate matter measured between 3 m. and 10 m from any process equipment of a stone crushing unit shall not exceed 600 micro-grammes/cubic metre.” 8 It is seen that paragraph 6 repeats the contents of Schedule I to the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1996. Item No.11 in the Schedule deals with stone cruching unit Whatever is mentioned in that Schedule is repeated in para 6 of the said reply. So also item No.37 which again deals with stone crushing unit setting out the standard in two part The aforesaid reply repeats the first part. The second part of the schedule is not repeated in paragraph 6 as such. To some extent, it is the same as what is mentioned in serial No.11 of the Schedule. So also item No.37 which again deals with stone crushing unit setting out the standard in two part The aforesaid reply repeats the first part. The second part of the schedule is not repeated in paragraph 6 as such. To some extent, it is the same as what is mentioned in serial No.11 of the Schedule. However it is better to extract what is found in the second part of item No. 37 : "(ii) Quantitative standard for the SPM : The suspended particulate matter contribution value at a distance of 40 metres from a controlled isolated as well as from a unit located in a cluster should be less than 600 mg/Nm, 3. The measurements are to be conducted at least twice a month for all the 12 months in a year " 9. There can be no doubt that these requirements set out in Schedule I to the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and extracted in the additional reply affidavit filed by the Secretary (Industries) to the Government shall be strictly complied with when the proposed site is used for the installation of stone crushers It is the duty of the respondents to see that the requirements set out in the aforesaid Rules are met with by the owners of the stone crushing unit. 10. There shall be periodical inspection not only by the authorities of Pollution Control Board but also, by the officials of Industries Department to see that the requited standards are maintained properly. 11. In so far as section 5 of the Environment Protection Act h concerned it empowers the Central Government to issue directions in writing to any officer or any authority in the exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under the Act. Under section 23, the Central Government is enabled to delegate its functions under section 5 to any officer of the State Government or other authority Exercising the powers under section 23, the Central Government has issued a notification as early as on 10-2-1988 under notification No.152 (e) delegating his powers to the State Government. Under section 23, the Central Government is enabled to delegate its functions under section 5 to any officer of the State Government or other authority Exercising the powers under section 23, the Central Government has issued a notification as early as on 10-2-1988 under notification No.152 (e) delegating his powers to the State Government. Hence it is the duty of the State .Government, to frame appropriate guidelines to carry out the purpose and objects of the Act It is seen from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ishwar Singh v State of Haryana and others, (1995) 3 PLR 613 that the Government of Haryana has exercised such powers and framed the appropriate guidelines by appropriate notification The State Government, namely, the first respondent is directed to consider the matter and frame appropriate guidelines under section 5 within a period of six months from this date. 12. In so far as the Pollution Control Board is concerned if is bound to inspect the stone crushing unit atleast twice a month for all the twelve months in a year as required by Schedule I Item No. 37 and see that the standards prescribed under the provision of the Act and rules are not in any way violated. 13. In so far as the present proposed site for the stone crushing units owned by respondents No. 4 to 9 is concerned, we are of the opion that the above directions will safeguard the interest of the villagers as at present there is no rule for fixing a particular distance between the habitation of the village and the location of the stone crushing unit. Hence it is not possible to issue a writ as prayed for by the petitioner to prevent the installation of stone crushing unit Hence the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions as they are sufficient to safeguard the interest of the petitioner, 14. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, the interim stay is vacated Petition disposed with direction. -