JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Petitioner No. 1, a voluntary Social Organisation, espousing the cause of general public, has filed this public interest writ petition seeking direction to close down a Crusher Unit in the name and style of "M/s. Durga Stone Crusher", owned by opposite parties 5 & 6, situated at Chandra Bahal in the district of Angul. The moot question which needs to be answered in this case is, whether to preserve the environment and to control pollution, the Crusher Unit situated within the prohibited zone, as notified by the Orissa Pollution Control Board on September 11, 1998 and published in the Orissa Gazette (Annexure-5) should be closed. 2. This case has a chequered career, inasmuch as this is the third writ petition filed before this Court. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts which are very much necessary for appreciating the inter se disputes are : In the year 1998 M/s. Durga Stone Crusher (opposite party No. 5) applied for grant of registration certificate to establish a Crusher Unit in village Chandra Banal. The District Industries Centre, Angul which came into existence while the application was under active consideration, made a field enquiry and issued "No Objection" certificate as well as a Provisional Registration Certificate in favour of opposite party No. 5, as per Annexure-A/4. Thereafter, opposite party No. 5 took prompt steps for the construction of necessary structures to install the Crusher Unit. While the matter stood thus, the present petitioners moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 7470 of 1999, which was also in the nature of a public interest litigation, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to the State Government not to allow the Crusher Unit to be set up violating the required guidelines issued by the State from time to time. During pendency of the said writ application, the District Industries Centre, Dhenkanal cancelled the "No Objection" certificate issued in favour of opposite party No. 5. Being aggrieved the said order, opposite party No. 5 moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 10828 of 1999 solely on the ground that the order of cancellation was passed without according any opportunity of hearing. During pendency of the said writ application, the District Industries Centre, Dhenkanal cancelled the "No Objection" certificate issued in favour of opposite party No. 5. Being aggrieved the said order, opposite party No. 5 moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 10828 of 1999 solely on the ground that the order of cancellation was passed without according any opportunity of hearing. The said writ application was allowed on December 22, 1999 and the order of cancellation was quashed, but liberty was given to the D.I.C. to take steps afresh for cancellation of "No Objection" certificate granted in favour of opposite party No. 5 in case, in its opinion, it was necessary after following the principles of natural justice and equity. 3. The writ petition filed by the present petitioners, i.e., O.J.C. No. 7470 of 1999, was also disposed of on the same day, i.e., December 22, 1999 observing that in view of the order passed in O.J.C. No. 10828/99 it was not necessary to give further direction. The orders passed by this Court earlier have been annexed to this writ petition as Annexures-B/4 and C/4, respectively. 4. In consonance with the direction issued by this Court, the General Manager, D.I.C., Angul called upon opposite party No. 5 to show cause and after affording reasonable opportunity to opposite party No. 5 as well as the present petitioners, sent up the proposal to the Collector, Angul for necessary action. The Collector, Angul constituted a Committee consisting of the A.D.M., Angul; General Manager of D.I.C., Angul; the Regional Officer, Orissa State Pollution Control Board, Angul; Tahsildar, Angul and the Circle Inspector of Police, Angul to inspect the site and submit its report. The petitioners and opposite party No. 5 were also noticed to remain present on May 18, 2000 at 9 a.m., which was the time fixed for inspection. After conducting inspection, the Committee submitted its report to the Collector. It was noticed by the Committee on spot verification that there was a school situated in the vicinity where the Crusher Unit was proposed to be installed, but then it was observed that the presence of a hillock acted as a natural barrier to prevent dust and noise. On the basis of this report; the Collector directed the issuance of a "No Objection" certificate in favour of opposite party No. 5 and directed to take necessary action to run the Unit. On the basis of this report; the Collector directed the issuance of a "No Objection" certificate in favour of opposite party No. 5 and directed to take necessary action to run the Unit. Accordingly, permanent registration certificate was issued in favour of opposite party No. 5 on October 21, 2000. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the said decision is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. After receiving the Rule issued by this Court, opposite parties 3 and 4 appeared and filed a counter affidavit sworn to by the Assistant Manager, D.I.C., Angul. Another counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties 5 and 6, the owners of the Crusher Unit. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the counter filed by opposite parties 3 and 4 and opposite parties 5 and 6 have filed a reply affidavit to the said rejoinder. Several other affidavits enclosing documents, photographs, spot maps, etc., etc. have also been filed by the parties. 6. We have carefully perused the pleadings as well as the documents filed before us and heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Swain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G. Mukherjee, for opposite parties 5 and 6 and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State in extenso. 7. It is well known fact that during the past few years our soil, water resources, pastures, forests, wild life, flora and fauna have been largely affected by large scale establishment of industrial units like Stone Crusher Units, mining operation, excavation, increase in the number of automobiles, etc. It is no more res integra that a court while dealing with such matters, if finds that by establishment of an industrial unit there is likelihood of causing imbalance to ecology or hazard to healthy environment, then in that case the court would direct closure of such unit. Of course, natural resources have got to be tapped for the purpose of social development, but one cannot forget at the same time that tapping of resources has to be done with requisite attention and care, so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way. They are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation. Preservation of environment and keeping ecological balance unaffected is a task which not only Government, but also every citizen must undertake. They are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation. Preservation of environment and keeping ecological balance unaffected is a task which not only Government, but also every citizen must undertake. It is a social obligation and is a fundamental duty of every citizen as enshrined under Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the notice dated September 11, 1998 (Annexure-5) issued by the Orissa Pollution Control Board inviting attention of the Stone Crushers operating in the State of Orissa, which is as follows : "As per the Orissa Gazette, June 5th, 1998, State Government has issued the following directions to the persons carrying on the operation of the Stone Crushers in the State, namely : 1. All Stone Crusher units are to confirm to the pollution control measures and emission standards notified by the Ministry of Environment & Forest from time to time along with the standards u/s 7 of the said Act. 2. No Stone Crusher shall be allowed within one kilometre from a town or village boundary. 3. No Stone Crusher should be located within half kilometre from the National and State Highways. 4. Distance between two Stone Crusher units shall be at least half kilometre. Stone Crusher units which are in the aforesaid prohibited limits shall shift to other areas within six months from the date of publication of this Notification in the Orissa Gazette. As such all the Stone Crusher units operating in the State of Orissa are requested to comply the directions in the stipulated time, i.e., latest by 4.12.98." Learned counsel forcefully argued that as per the inspection report furnished by the Tahsildar, Angul, the site where the Crusher Unit has been established is at a distance of about 860 metres from village Chandra Bahal and about 500 metres from Chandra Bahal U.P. School. Thus, according to the petitioners, the same is situated within the prohibited zone. In support of such contention, apart from relying upon Annexure-6, the report submitted by the Additional Tahsildar, the petitioners also drew our attention to the averments made in reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, which is at page 79 of the brief. Thus, according to the petitioners, the same is situated within the prohibited zone. In support of such contention, apart from relying upon Annexure-6, the report submitted by the Additional Tahsildar, the petitioners also drew our attention to the averments made in reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, which is at page 79 of the brief. In para - 4 of the said affidavit, it is specifically averred by the owners of the Crusher Unit as follows : "That it is admitted that the Crusher Unit is at a distance of 860 metres from the village. Previously when the permission for setting up of the Unit was accorded the distance was about 1 K.M. from the village. Subsequently the distance was reduced because a person purchased a plot of land and constructed a house within 1 K.M. thereby reducing the distance for this the petitioner cannot be blamed nor can his unit be stopped." In para - 5 of the affidavit, the said opposite parties have also admitted that the "Crusher Unit" is situated near Chandra Bahal U.P. School. This fact also gets fortified from the counter affidavit filed by the State as well as the joint inspection report, Annexure-B/4. While admitting the distance between the Unit and the village and school, it is submitted by the opposite parties that the Crusher Unit has been set up with the required pollution control measures like water-spraying facilities, wind-breaking walls, close chamber, fruit-bearing trees and 13 boundary wall. Further, the school though situated within 500 metres is intervened by a hillock and as such the prohibitions enumerated in the Notice dated September 11, 1998 (Annexure-5) shall not stand on the way in granting permission for establishing the Crusher Unit. 9. It is strenuously submitted on behalf of opposite parties 5 and 6 that the guidelines and the restrictions stipulated in the Notice issued by the Orissa Pollution Control Board, vide Annexure-5, are only regulatory, the same being not in consonance with the Act and the Rules and should not be strictly adhered to. The same are also not mandatory in nature. But then, the Notice stipulating the prohibited zone as well as the distance which has to be maintained between the Unit vis-a-vis village boundary, school, etc. is very vital. The same are also not mandatory in nature. But then, the Notice stipulating the prohibited zone as well as the distance which has to be maintained between the Unit vis-a-vis village boundary, school, etc. is very vital. The said Notice was issued in consonance with the policy and in furtherance of achieving the objectives sought to be achieved under the Act and the Rules. Thus we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention of the learned counsel for opposite parties 5 and 6 that the stipulations made in the Notice and circulars issued by Government are only regulatory and not mandatory requirements. According to us, the guidelines having been issued to achieve the purpose of the Act, the same have to be sacrosanctly adhered to while dealing with an application for establishing Stone Crusher Unit. 10. Admittedly, establishment of a Crusher Unit in the vicinity of village boundary as well as within 500 metres from a school would cause health hazard to young children. The dust and fumes emitted from the Crusher Unit would be a threat to the lives of young children. The same would also be hazardous to the flora and fauna of the locality and to the agricultural lands of the village which are situated in close vicinity. The yields of the said fields shall also be affected. Keeping all these factors in mind and the achieve the goal in consonance with the Act and the Rules, the circulars have been issued, and we are not prepared to accept that the guidelines of the said circulars/notice are empty formalities. The question posed is answered accordingly. 11. In the case at hand, surprisingly the authorities holding the reigns of conducting the enquiry for finding out suitable places for establishment of Stone Crusher Units have completely lost sight of the admitted fact that the unit in question is situated only 500 metres away from a school. This factor is of cardinal importance and the same is contrary to the guidelines fixed by the State Government. The justification given by the authorities while granting the permission that there is a hillock in between the school and the site of the unit, is of no consequence. The guidelines do not speak about any such exception. The report further reveals that the members of the Committee chose to visit the school on a day when the school was closed. The guidelines do not speak about any such exception. The report further reveals that the members of the Committee chose to visit the school on a day when the school was closed. Thus they had no occasion to notice the difficulties, if any, faced by the young children. Admittedly when the Unit would function, there would be a vibration and also emission of dust and fumes, which, according to us, would be hazardous to the health of the young pupils of the school. The authorities should have sacrosanctly followed the guidelines issued, which they are otherwise bound to do. Granting permission giving a go-by to the guidelines notified by the authorities is an act not sanctioned by law and cannot be appreciated. 12. Taking into consideration all these factors and in view of the admitted facts that the Crusher Unit of opposite parties 5 and 6 is not only within 860 metres from the village boundary but also the same is situated within 500 metres from the school, where young boys and girls spend better part of their day, we feel it is a fit case where the permission accorded to establish the Crusher Unit under Annexure-1 should be quashed, and we order accordingly. 13. We are conscious that as a result of quashing the permission to establish the Crusher Unit, the Unit would be closed down permanently. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that opposite parties 5 and 6 have invested huge amount and would sustain heavy loss. But then it is a price that has to be paid for protecting the future life of so many young children who are studying in the school and safeguarding the right of the people to five in healthy environment with minimal disturbance to ecological balance without avoidable hazards to them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural lands as also undue affection of air and environment. 14. 14. Keeping all these factors in mind and in order to mitigate the hardship, if any, to be caused to opposite parties 5 and 6, we direct that whenever any other area in the vicinity is found suitable for establishing Crusher Unit, it would be open to opposite parties 5 and 6, who are going to be displaced as a result of this order, to apply for grant of permission in respect of such area which satisfies all the criteria stipulated by the State and the said application shall be dealt with by the concerned authorities with utmost promptitude by affording priority. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is allowed. P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 15. I agree. Final Result : Allowed