Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1000 (PNJ)

Jai Rice & General Mills v. State of Punjab

2011-04-05

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, RANJAN GOGOI

body2011
JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (Oral) - The challenge in the writ petition is against an order dated 10.9.2009 (Annexure P-6) the effect of which is that the petitioner-unit (rice shelling unit) has been compelled to close down its business. 2. The facts are long but an attempt must be made to summarize and state only what is material for the purpose of the present petition. On the basis of a NOC granted by the Punjab Pollution Control Board on 23.8.2007, the rice shelling unit in the petitioner-mill commenced its operations. One of the norms required to be met by the said unit is that the same should not be located at a distance less than 500 meters from a main road/highway. A complaint in this regard was filed before the Pollution Control Board on the basis of which a show-cause notice dated 24.9.2007 was issued to the petitioner pointing out a deficiency in the matter of maintaining the requisite distance. The petitioner approached the State Government for relaxation of the particular norm which was so done on 23.7.2009. 3. On the basis of the relaxation granted by the competent authority of the State, the Pollution Control Board gave its final consent to the petitioner to operate. This was done on 24.7.2009. 4. The complainant who had moved the Pollution Control Board in the aforesaid facts, had filed a writ petition before this Court, i.e., CWP No.12737 of 2007 which was disposed of on 6.2.2009 by interfering with the relaxation granted and directing the Government to reconsider the matter of grant of such relaxation. On the basis of the order of the Court, the Pollution Control Board on 21.4.2009 recalled the NOC granted to the petitioner and ordered closure of operations by order dated 26.6.2009. The petitioner thereafter approached the Appellate Authority under Section 28 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. There was an interim order of stay of the closure order. Thereafter, on 3.2.2010, final order was passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the petitioner to run its rice shelling unit subject to certain conditions. During the interregnum, the State Government, acting pursuant to the order dated 6.2.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No.12737 of 2007, decided not to grant relaxation to the petitioner upon due consideration of the matter. Thereafter, on 3.2.2010, final order was passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the petitioner to run its rice shelling unit subject to certain conditions. During the interregnum, the State Government, acting pursuant to the order dated 6.2.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No.12737 of 2007, decided not to grant relaxation to the petitioner upon due consideration of the matter. This was by order dated 10.9.2009. In these circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.9.2009. 5. After the petition was entertained and written statements/affidavits were exchanged, this Court by order dated 16.2.2011 passed the following order:- “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the following order would be appropriate at this stage:- The Punjab Pollution Control Board will carry out the inspection of anti pollution devices stated to be introduced by the petitioner and test the effectiveness of the measures introduced in the light of the existing parameters. Therefore the Pollution Control Board shall forward its report along with its recommendations in the matter to the State Government who will take a decision in the light of the report of the Pollution Control Board as to whether the petitioner unit can be allowed to operate in relaxation of the norms. It is stated by Shri D.S. Patwalia, learned Counsel for the Pollution Control Board that to test the effectiveness of the measures/devices adopted by the petitioner, the unit of the petitioner is to run in full capacity for two weeks at the end of which alone the inspection and the testing can be done by the Board. In view of the above, we direct the petitioner to open its unit and run the same for two weeks but only for the purpose of enabling the Board to conduct the necessary inspection and tests. Once the operation of unit is commenced by the petitioner in terms of the present order, the said fact will be communicated to the Board who will carry out the inspection/tests within two weeks of the commencement of the unit. After the completion of inspection/tests by the Board, the unit again will be shut down to await such further orders as may be passed by this Court. List again on April 05, 2011.” 6. After the completion of inspection/tests by the Board, the unit again will be shut down to await such further orders as may be passed by this Court. List again on April 05, 2011.” 6. The Pollution Control Board has carried out the necessary inspection and monitoring pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 16.2.2011 passed by this Court. A report of such monitoring which has been brought on record after a detailed narration of the relevant facts, contains the following recommendations:- “The site of the industry conforms to all the siting guidelines laid down by the Government for establishment of rice shellers except its distance from the scheduled road, which is 91 m against the stipulation of 500 m. But in view of above said ambient air quality monitoring studies, the Committee is of the view that the siting guideline in respect of the distance of rice sheller from the scheduled road can be relaxed in this case. Therefore, this industry can be allowed to operate at the present site in relaxation of the siting guideline laid down by the State Government in respect of its distance from the scheduled road.” 7. The aforesaid report of the Pollution Control Board was required to be sent to the State Government for its decision in the matter. It appears that the said report was so sent and has been duly considered by the State Govt. The decision of the State Govt. has been set in para 7 of a status report dated 5.4.2011 filed before the Court which is in the following terms:- “8.0 Recommendations The site of the industry conforms to all the siting guidelines laid down by the Government for establishment of rice shellers except its distance from the scheduled road, which is 91 m against the stipulation of 500 m. But in view of above said ambient air quality monitoring studies, the Committee is of the view that the siting guideline in respect of the distance of rice sheller from the scheduled road can be relaxed in this case. Therefore, this industry can be allowed to operate at the present site in relaxation of the siting guideline laid down by the State Government in respect of its distance from the scheduled road.” 8. Therefore, this industry can be allowed to operate at the present site in relaxation of the siting guideline laid down by the State Government in respect of its distance from the scheduled road.” 8. From the above facts, it transpires that the efficacy of the antipollution device/measures introduced in the petitioner-unit have been tested, analyzed and monitored by the Pollution Control Board which had recommended that the industry could be allowed to recommence its operations. The said report has been duly considered by the appropriate Authority of the State which is competent to grant relaxation of the norms pertaining to the distance between a rice shelling unit and the main road/highway. The decision of the State Govt., extracted above, is to the effect that relaxation can now be granted to the petitioner unit. 9. If the above is the view of the Pollution Control Board as well as the State Govt., naturally the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of relaxation and to recommence its operations. The State Govt. is, therefore, directed to act accordingly and thereafter the Pollution Control Board shall do all that is required to be done. Necessary and consequential steps by both the State Govt. and the Pollution Control Board will be completed within a period of two weeks. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Order Accordingly.