1. An order passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Pollution Control Board, whereby the petitioner has been called upon not to carry on the activity of stone crushing in the area in which he is so carrying on is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2. A notice regarding the above action was issued by the respondents on 16th November 99. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is carrying this activity in pursuance of the permission granted by the Industries department in the year 1981. This has been placed on the record as Annexure-A. It is thus submitted that once this permission is granted, no impediment can be created by the Board in question and the petitioner cannot be called upon to stop the stone crushing activity. 4. The first declaration on the subject where the Supreme Court intervened and called upon the State authorities to see that stone crushing units do not disturb the ecological balance is reported as MC Mehta Vs. Union of India, (1092) 3 SCC 256. In pursuance of this decision, the State authorities in various parts of the country took steps with a view to see that the air pollution which is caused on account of stone crushing is minimized and this activity is undertaken in a manner that the residential areas are not affected by it. As to how much damage is caused by stone crushers is a matter on which a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 Punjab and Haryana 30, observed as under: - ..We have investigated the health problems due to the pollution caused by stone crushers in Panchkula and Surajpur areas of Haryana, in a pilot fashion. We have examined the health status of 307 subjects working at the sites, as well as residents of the nearby area of several stone crushers. We found a significantly high prevalence of respiratory (44.6%) and gastrointestinal (30.2%) problems. Needless to say that the problems are similar for other places as well. The issue of health effects of environmental pollution is very important. We are aware that stone crushers are required in the overall development of the State and the Society. We found a significantly high prevalence of respiratory (44.6%) and gastrointestinal (30.2%) problems. Needless to say that the problems are similar for other places as well. The issue of health effects of environmental pollution is very important. We are aware that stone crushers are required in the overall development of the State and the Society. But a balance has to be struck between the needs of the industry, (sic) increased costs and due to measures to minimize the health hazards; versus the issues of, human health and esthetic values. Considering the fact that health is the supreme goal, it is essential to achieve the same. Some of remedial measures and educational steps which may help in minimizing the health risk, have been suggested in this report. The air we breathe, is a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen with minor constituents like carbon dioxide and trap gases. Pollutants in the air e.g. dust, smoke industrial and automobile exhaust, gaseous and paniculate matter. Nature and amount of these pollutants vary from place to place depending upon pollution, vehicular density, location of industrial units etc. Lungs are the major organs affected by the air pollution because of the direct contact of the respiratory track with outside atmosphere The spectrum of functional and pathological reactions of the lungs to various exposures is wide. Chronic bronchitis and airways obstruction is the result of long term exposure to air pollution. Exposure to many of the occupational and environmental pollutants can precipitate and/or aggravate asthma. Organic matter/dusts can also cause other allergic reactions producing allergic alveoli is. Inorganic dusts may get deposited in the lungs and produce fibro-sis. This produces reparatory disability and decreased work efficiency. While anthracosis is common in coal miners, silicosis occurs in those exposed to the silica dust namely the workers involved in mining, pottery work and sand blasting. Exposure, to dust may lower the lung defences and clearing mechanism, resulting in infections particularly tuberculosis. Some such occupational exposures may cause lung cancer as well. Stone crushing is an important occupation in Haryana. There are plenty of stone crushers, in Panchkula, Chanidmandi, Surajpur, Tosham (Bhiwani), Gurgaon and Faridabad areas. Exposure, to dust may lower the lung defences and clearing mechanism, resulting in infections particularly tuberculosis. Some such occupational exposures may cause lung cancer as well. Stone crushing is an important occupation in Haryana. There are plenty of stone crushers, in Panchkula, Chanidmandi, Surajpur, Tosham (Bhiwani), Gurgaon and Faridabad areas. Due to stone crushing a lot of thick dust is generated polluting the environment, visible dust contained particles more than 50 u in diameter, which settle down in the nose and pharynx Smaller particles of 5 -10 u size remain suspended in air and are inhaled deeper These are deposited in tracheobronchial tree and lung parenchyma and may induce fibrosis. This causes long function impairment and debility. These may also reactivate the old tubercular foci in the lungs. The water sources of these areas are also affected. This happens due to the dusts deposited on exposed water courses and containers and unhygienic living conditions of the workers involved in the profession. Many gastrointestinal and liver ailments may, therefore, be seen. There is no information available about the health status of the workers involved in stone crushing as also of the residents of the nearby localities. From the general evidence available from similar occupants, it is quite likely that the health status of these people is significantly impaired. Therefore, we proposed to study this problem in a pilot fashion in a limited area.� 5. In the above case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took notice of what was said by the Supreme Court in M.C. Methas case (supra). The directions given were noticed. What was observed in para 11 of the judgment by the Division Bench is being reproduced below:- In M.C. Mehtas case (supra) decided on 15-03-1992 (1992) 3 SCC 256, the Supreme Court noted that environmental changes are the inevitable consequence of industrial development in our country, but at the same time the quality of environment cannot be permitted to be damaged by polluting the air, water and land to such an extent that it become a health hazard for the residents of the area. Dealing with the case of stone crushers located near or around Delhi, the Supreme Court observed that "we are constrained to record that Delhi Development Authority, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Central Pollution Board and Delhi Pollution Control Committee have been wholly remiss in the performance of their statutory duties and have failed to protect the environments and control air pollution in the Union Territory of Delhi. Utter disregard to environment has placed Delhi in an unenviable position of being the worlds third grubbiest, most polluted and unhealthy city as per a study conducted by the World Health Organization. Needless to say that every citizen has a right to a fresh air and to live in pollution free environments.� The Supreme Court thereafter issued the following directions:- (1) The mechanical stone crushers established/operating in Lal Kuan, Anand Parbat, Rajkour, Tughlakabad and in any other area of the Union Territory of Delhi shall stop operating/functioning with effect from August 15, 1992. No stone crushers shall operate in the Union Territory of Delhi from August 15, 1992 onwards. (2) The mechanical stone crushers established/operating in Suraj Kund, Lakhanpur, Kakkarpur, Kattan, Gurukul, Badkhai, Pallinangla, Saraikhaja, Anangpur and Ballabgarh areas of Haryana shall stop operating/functioning with effect from August 15, 1992. No stone crushers shall operate in the above said area from August 15, 1992 onward. (3) The writ petitions filed by the owners/ proprietors of stone crushers in the Delhi High Court which have been transferred to this Court shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs. (4) The stone crushers in the Union Territory of Delhi/Faridabad-Ballabgarh Complex which do not have valid licenses from the authorities under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1975/Faridabad Complex Administration (Regulations and Development Act, 1971 or from any other authority which the law requires, shall stop functioning and operating with immediate effect. (5) The stone crushers, in respect of which closure orders/directions have been issued by the Central Pollution Control Board under Section 31-A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, shall stop functioning/operating with immediate effect. (5) The stone crushers, in respect of which closure orders/directions have been issued by the Central Pollution Control Board under Section 31-A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, shall stop functioning/operating with immediate effect. (6) The Delhi Development Authority through its Vice-Chairman and Commissioner (Planning), the Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, Faridabad Complex Administration through its Chief Administrator, Director Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Commissioner/ Chief Executive, Central Pollution Control Board through its Member-Secretary, Central Government under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Commissioner, Police of Delhi, are directed to ensure the compliance with our above orders. (7) The officers of the Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Haryana, who were present in Court, informed us that new crushing zone" has been approved at village Pali and the lay out Plan has been prepared and is in the processes of demarcation by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The said crushing zone" has been set up with the object of rehabilitating the existing stone crushers who are being stopped from functioning as a result of our orders. We therefore, direct the State of Haryana through the Director. Town and Country Planning Department. Haryana, Chandigarh, the Chief Administrator, Faridabad Complex Administration, the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad and the Haryana Urban Development Authority to demarcate, and allot the sites to the stone crushers mentioned in paras 1, 2, 4 and 5 above by draw of lots or by any other fair and equitable method. We further direct these authorities to provide additional land in or around the "crushing zone" if there is not sufficient land in the said zone to accommodate all the stone crushers affected by our orders. This experience shall be completed and plots offered to the stone crushers within a period of six months-from today. The Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, Chandigarh is further directed to send a progress report to Registry of this Court before July 31, 1992 in this respect.� After taking note of the aforementioned decision, the preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of a person who had initiated the litigation as Public Interest Litigation was examined. In this regard, the earlier view expressed in an un-reported case was taken not of and it was observed that: - Under the normal circumstances and on the basis of traditional rule in regard to locus standi it is only a person who has suffered of his legal right by the impugned action, or who is likely to suffer an injury by the reasoning of threatened violation of his legal right can alone approach the Court invoking its jurisdiction for the issuance, of any of the writ contemplated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The basis of entitlement of judicial redress being personal injury to property, body, mind or reputation arising from violation, actual or threatened of the legal right-legally protected interest of the person seeking such redress, only such aggrieved person could approach the Court for the redressal of his grievance.� 6. Thereafter, reference was made to the judgment by the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, a decision of Queens Bench and the decision given in K.R. Shenoys case. What is stated is being quoted below: The Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, held that such rule to be a rule of ancient vintage and it arose during an era when private law dominated the legal scene and public law had not yet been born. After referring to the case in Sideobothams case (1880) 14 ChD 458 and Reed Bowen and court case (1887) 19 QBD 174 of the English Courts, it was held, "but narrow and rigid though this rule may be, there are few exceptions to it which have been evolved by the Courts over the years." In KR Shenoy vs. Udipi Municipality, AIR 1974 SC 2177, it was held that against an illegal action of the local authority, a rate payer could question the action of the Muncipality in granting a cinema license to a person.� 7. It was ultimately concluded that Public Interest Litigation can be resorted to. It was ultimately concluded that Public Interest Litigation can be resorted to. What was said in SP Guptas case (supra) was quoted and is being quoted again:- We could, therefore, hold that any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty, or from violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision. This is absolutely essential for maintaining the rule of law, furthering the cause of justice and accelerating the pace of realization of the constitutional objective. "Law", as pointed out by Justice Krishna Iyer in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union Vs. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344, is a social auditor and this audit function can be put in action when some one with real public interest ignites the jurisdiction. A fear is sometimes expressed that if we keep the door wide open for any member of the public to enter the portals of the Court to enforce public duty or to vindicate Public interest, the Court will be flooded with litigation: But this fear is totally unfounded and the argument based upon it is answered completely by the Australian Law Reforms Commission in the following words: The idle and whimsical plaintiff a dilettante who litigates for a lark, is specter which haunts the legal literature not the Court room (Prof. K.E. Scott; "Standing in the Supreme Court: A Functional Analyst" (1973) 86). A major expressed reason for limiting standing rights is fear or a spate of actions brought by busy bodies which will unduly extend the resources of the courts. No argument is easier put, none more difficult to rebut. Even if the fear be justified it does not follow that present restrictions should remain. If proper claims exist it may be necessary to provide resources for their determination. However, the issue must be considered. Over recent years successive decisions of the United States Supreme Court have liberalized standing so as to afford a hearing to any person with a real interest in the relevant controversy surveying the result in 1973 Professor Scott commented (OPCit,673). When the floodgates of litigation are opened to some new class of controvers by a decision it is notable how rarely one can discern the flood that the dissenters feared. When the floodgates of litigation are opened to some new class of controvers by a decision it is notable how rarely one can discern the flood that the dissenters feared. Professor Scott went on to point out that the (liberalized standing rules had caused no significant increase in the number of action brought, arguing that parties will not litigate at considerable personal cost unless they have a real interest in a matter." 8. At the same time, it was also observed that the courts should be careful and should take into consideration that the person who comes to the court comes bonafide and "not for personal gains or private profit or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The court should not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective..." 9. With regard to the question of locus standi, detailed observations were made in paragraphs 18 to 23 of the judgement by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court and ultimately in para 24, it was concluded as under- The question of locus standi would not be material and the court would allow litigation in public interest if it is found: i/ That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in part III of the constitution of India and relief is sought for its enforcement; ii/ That the action complained of is palpably illegal or malafide and affects the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own interest on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance of law; iii/ That the person or a group of persons were approaching the court in public interest for redressal of public injury arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the constitutional law; iv/ That such person or group of persons is not a busy-body of meddlesome inter loper and have not approached with malafide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance or grievance; v/ That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politicians or other busy bodies for political or unrelated objectives. Every default on the part of the State or Public Authority being no justifiable in public in such litigation: vi/ That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of the common man in the institution of the judiciary and the democratic set up of the country; vii/ That the Slate action was being tried to be covered under the carpet and intended to be thrown out of technicalities; viii/ Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or on the basis of a letter or other information received but upon satisfaction that the information laid before the court was of such a nature which required examination; ix/ That the person approaching the court has come with clean hands, clean heart and clean objectives; x/ That before taking any action in public interest the court must be satisfied that its forum was not being misused by any unscrupulous litigant, politicians, busybody or persons or groups with malafide objective of either for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to black-mailing or considerations extraneous to public interest. 10. Regarding the air pollution and its overall affect on the wild-life detailed observations were made by the Division Bench in para 31 of the judgement in Ishwar Singhs case, which stand already noticed above. Ultimately in para 46, it was concluded as under:- Under the circumstances this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- 1. That all the private respondents who are owners of the stone crushers, shall close down their stone crushing business and shift them to the identified zones positively within a period of one month from the date of this judgement; 2. The state government shall take immediate steps for closure and shifting of stone crushers to the identified zones and issue licences only in favour of such persons who decide to shift their business of stone crusher to the identified zones. 3. That all the stone crushers located at present locations shall be deemed to have been closed after one month and shall not be permitted to carry on business of stone crusher on any ground or pretext whatsoever; 4. That the private respondents shall not purchase and the petitioner shall not sell his land, situated in identified zones for the purposes of installation of stone crushers or any other identical and ancillary purpose. That the private respondents shall not purchase and the petitioner shall not sell his land, situated in identified zones for the purposes of installation of stone crushers or any other identical and ancillary purpose. 5. That the citizens of the area are authorized to prefer their claims for grant of compensation; for those persons who are proved to have suffered due to pollution caused by stone crushers owned and managed by private respondents. Claims for such compensation may be entertained within two months after such right is notified to the inhabitants of the area. Such claims, if preferred, shall be considered and disposed of within three months and if any of the respondents-stone crushers is found to be responsible for making compensation, the same shall be paid by him within a period of two months thereafter, failing which his license for carrying on stone crusher business shall be cancelled. It is expected that while issuing the notification inviting the claims for compensation, the respondent-state shall appoint an Authority for entertainment and adjudication of such claims for compensation. It would be appreciated if the person having judicial background is appointed as such Authority. 6. That even though the State of Punjab has not been a party before us, yet copy of this judgement shall be served upon the Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab for taking up appropriate steps as per our observations made hereinabove. 7. A copy of this judgement shall be sent to the Chief Secretary of Government of Himachal Pradesh and the Registrar of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for their information and necessary action if so desired. 11. In the light of what has been stated the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the aforementioned case and which observations have been noticed above, it would be apt. to notice the controversy which has been raised in this petition: 12. It be seen that notice dated 16th Nov.99 i.e. the notice impugned in the petition, has been issued taking into consideration the following factors:- i/ That no such unit can operate unless and until there is permission from the pollution control board in terms of section 25/26 and section 21 of the water (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 198! It be seen that notice dated 16th Nov.99 i.e. the notice impugned in the petition, has been issued taking into consideration the following factors:- i/ That no such unit can operate unless and until there is permission from the pollution control board in terms of section 25/26 and section 21 of the water (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 198! ii/ That the sites where the units are being run have not been approved by the board in question; iii/ That large number of complaints have been received that on account of pollution caused by stone crushing activity, there is a grave threat to the health and safety of the people living in these areas; iv/ That number of notices were issued to the concerned mils to perform their activities as per the Acts referred to above but no steps were taken by them. 13. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the action taken by the Board in question. As a matter of fact, the action should have been taken much earlier. The judgement was given by the Supreme Court on the subject in the case of MC Mehtas case (supra) in the year 1992; the Pollution Control Board of the State has slept over the matter for almost seven years. The Board, however, has now acted in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court and these directions are to be complied with by all concerned. Needless to mention that the judgement given by the Supreme Court of India is the law of land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and any disobedience of the same by anybody can lead to action under the Contempt of Courts Act. Such is the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. V. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and another, (1997)6 SCC 450, wherein it was observed that "when a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say at least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the panics. It is time that this tendency stops." 14. I am of the view that had the Board not taken any action, it would have been liable to contempt, but, as indicated above, it having taken action with a view to comply the judgement of the Supreme Court, it would be apt at this stage to put a stop to this. The action taken by the Board in question is accepted. The petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed. The Board is directed to proceed further in the matter take necessary action within a period of two months from the date, a copy of this order is made available to it. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the respondent Chairman of the J&K Pollution Control Board, Jammu. Petition as indicated above shall stand dismissed.