JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J.(Oral) :- This petition was registered on a representation made by the Estate Right Holders of mauza Nadhukar P.O.Bas-antpur, 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 versus State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP.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 crushers which were at that time operating within the Shimla Environment Protection Zone had to be shifted and they had to be rehabilitated else- where. 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 respondent No. 10 and 13 to 27 on alternative site(s) by granting all necessary permissions within a period of six months. 5. For making recommendation 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 laws and environment 1 protection laws while mating 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 3 9 Kms. from Shimla along the kacha road leading to village Nadukhar. It is stated in the reply filed by respondent 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 situated more than 50 meters from Shimla Basantpur Tatapani road. It is stated in the reply filed by respondent 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 situated more than 50 meters from Shimla Basantpur Tatapani road. It is also stated that the lessees shall develop their quarry roads from the link road leading to village Nadukar and not from the main road. The map of the site was anexed to the reply as Annexure -A 3. One of the complaints of the villagers is that e Primary School buildings situated near the proposed site. It is stated in the reply that the school is at a distance of 160 meters from the last boundary of the proposed site and there will be hardly any erratic sound pollution which can disturb the children at a distance of more than 160 meters. 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 Govt. 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 wool, grass etc. form 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 judgment of this court in CWP.No.826/94 dated 29.9.1994 and it is stated that the recommendation of committee has been up-held in the said judgment. 4. Thereafter, the owners of the stone crushers got impleaded themselves as party namely, Respondents No. 4 to 9 in the writ petition. The court impleaded the Pollution Control Board of the State and State Geologist as respondent No. 10 to 11. 5. In this 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 disturb the peaceful environment. 5. In this 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 disturb 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 crusher will be about 150 meters away and village Nadukha/will be at a distance of about 350 meters 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 condition of keeping the stone crushing unit at 500 meters 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 not 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 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 raised for installing stone crushers in the proposed site. If he had not done so it was a gross derelection of duty on the part on the other hand there was no such requirement that the stone crushing unit should be installed 500 meters 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 meters away from the locality. There is no reference in the reply as to whether such guidelines were in existance previously. 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 meters away from the locality. There is no reference in the reply as to whether such guidelines were in existance 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 unit who were dis-lodged 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 vis-a-vis inhabitants of a village. 7. 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 in reply to the objection a raised in Para l (b) It is submitted that the Primary School building is about 200 meters away from the nearest stone crusher & 400 meters radial distance in respect of other proposed stone crusher. The National Productivity Council has discovered that 80% dust pollution can be contained by simply enclosing certain operations. (b) 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, a normal range for hearing. (vi) A belt of trees of about 50 meters 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 U/S 15 of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1986 the distance from building & inhabited site has been specified as 60 meters for minig operations. However, under Rule 21(1) (viii) of the Himachal Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971 (framed U/S 15 of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1986 the distance from building & inhabited site has been specified as 60 meters for minig operations. Therefore, the disturbance to the vicinity from the crushing site is within the permisible limit keeping in view, the said rule. 8. 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) mining shall be- earned out systematically, scientifically and friendly manner. (b) Mining does not mean permanent loss of land for other uses. It holds potential for altered and improved land use (husbandary) 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« 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 revegetation of environment of the people, by the people and for the people. (f) Since mining and afforestation shall go hand in hand, the chances scar formation, erosion are least. The Slope considerations are; favourable for mining. (g) Disturbed land is more water retentive. The main cause is the excelent characterstics of mine spoils to be able to promote infiltration and thus decrease run off. (h) Section 4A of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1986 is there is case there is any degradation of environment or pollution beyond prescribed limits. 9. That in reply to para 1 (e) it is submitted that nearest house from the proposed crusher will be 150 meters, and village Nadukhar approximately 350 meters from the site of proposed seven stone crushers. In a hand-out brochure published by the HP. State Board for Prevention of Water Pollution it has been! specified as under : (a) No Noise : Dull life. (b) Less Noise : Better life. (c) More Noise : No life. The points enumerated above and the provision land down in Section 4A of the ibid Act, are there for strigent control of noise pollution. State Board for Prevention of Water Pollution it has been! specified as under : (a) No Noise : Dull life. (b) Less Noise : Better life. (c) More Noise : No life. The points enumerated above and the provision land down in Section 4A of the ibid Act, are there for strigent control of noise pollution. The curshers are proposed in two clusters separated by a mining road (proposed) as per drawing No. CLG.DRG. H.P.No.2519 dated 30.9.94. The Government of India vide its Notification No. GSR 422(E) & published in Gazette of India 19.5.93 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 cleaning of wetting of the ground within the premises. (e) Growing of green belt along the periphery. At SL. No. 11 of Schedule I appended to the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 the following entry has been made: Sr.No. Industry Parameter Standards 11. Stone Crushing Unit Suspended part- -iculate matter The suspended particulate matter measured between 3m & 10 m. from any process equipment of a stone crushing unit shall not exceed 600 microgrammes/cubic metre." 10. 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 e crushing unit. Whatever is mentioned in that Schedule is repeated in i-6 of the said reply. So also item No. 37 which again deals with stone crushing unit setting out the standard in two parts. The aforesaid replay 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. l 1 of the Schedule. However it is better to extract what is found in the second part of itemNo.37. "(ii) Quantitative standard for the SFM : The suspended particulate matter contribution value at a distance of 40 meters from a controlled isolated as well as from a unit located a 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." 11. "(ii) Quantitative standard for the SFM : The suspended particulate matter contribution value at a distance of 40 meters from a controlled isolated as well as from a unit located a 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." 11. 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 compilied 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 with by the owners of the stone crushing unit. 12. There shall be periodical inspection not only by the authorities of Pollution Control Board but also by the official of Industries Department to see that the required standards are maintained properly. 13. In so far as Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act is concerned it empowers the Central Government to issue directions in writing to any officer or any authority in the exercise of its powers ad performance of its functions under the Act under Section 23, the Central Government is enabled to delegate its function under Section 5 to any officer of the State Government or other authority. Exercising the power under Section 23 the Central Government has issued a notification as early as on 10.2.1988 under notification No. I52(e) delegating his powers to the Slate Government. Hence it is the duty of the State Government to frame appro-1 priate 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 Ors. (1995-3) PLR(613) that the Govt. of Haryana has exercised such rowers and framed the appropriate guidelines by appropriate notification The State Govt., 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 14. (1995-3) PLR(613) that the Govt. of Haryana has exercised such rowers and framed the appropriate guidelines by appropriate notification The State Govt., 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 14. In so far as the Pollution Control Board is concerned it is bound to inspect the stone crushing unit at least 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 any way violated. 15. 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 opinion 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 issues a writ as prayed for by the petitioner to prevent the installation of stone of crushing unit. Hence the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions as they are sufficient to safeguard the interest of the petitioner. 16. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, the interim stay is vacated.