JUDGMENT JUSTICE B.P. DAS, CHAIRMAN, J. — The appellant, M/s. Sarala Stone Crusher represented by its occupier-Shri Biswaranjan Sahoo of Village Gudiakateni, District Dhenkanal, has preferred this appeal under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 28.9.2010 passed by the Regional Officer, State Pollution Control Board, Orissa, at Angul, in Annexure-5, revoking the consent to operate granted in favour of the appellant unit by letter no.684 dated 20.3.2008, which was valid upto 31.3.2011. 2.The appellant had earlier preferred an appeal being Appeal No.3-A of 2010 challenging the order of revocation of consent to operate dated 17.6.2010. As opportunity of hearing was not given to the appellant while passing the aforesaid order of revocation, the same was set aside by our order dated 31.7.2010 holding the followings vide paragraph 7 : “In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order of revocation of consent to operate in Annexure-7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of revocation in Annexure-7 and direct the appellant to appear before the Regional Officer in the first hour of 10.8.2010. Since the order in Annexure-7 clearly discloses the reason for revocation of the consent, the appellant treating Annexure-7 as the notice to show cause file show cause reply, if any, within seven days of his appearance. The R.O. and the Revenue Authority shall make measurement regarding the distance of the unit from the nearby village in presence of the appellant and take a decision on the same by end of September, 2010 taking into consideration the siting criteria prescribed by the State Govt.” 3.Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the appellant filed its show cause reply, vide Annexure-4, whereafter respondent no.2-the Regional Officer along with Tahasildar, Hindol, conducted a joint inspection on 15.9.2010. On the basis of the said joint inspection report and keeping in view the revised siting criteria notified by the State Govt. in the Forest and Environment Department vide the order dated 6.8.2010 (Annexure-6), the Regional Officer by the impugned order dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure-5) revoked the consent to operate granted in favour of the appellant unit. On the basis of the said joint inspection report and keeping in view the revised siting criteria notified by the State Govt. in the Forest and Environment Department vide the order dated 6.8.2010 (Annexure-6), the Regional Officer by the impugned order dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure-5) revoked the consent to operate granted in favour of the appellant unit. It would be apposite to quote herein below the aforesaid order of revocation in extenso : “The joint inspection on the distance measurement of the unit from the nearby habitation/village was conducted on 15/9/2010 by the Tahasildar, Hindol and the Regional Officer, Pollution Control Board, Angul in your presence in pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Appellate Court dt.31/7/2010 in appeal no.3A of 2010. The copy of the Joint Inspection Report is enclosed for your reference. It is brought to your notice that the distance of the crusher from plot no.3903 (Kaladamini Thakurani) of Dullavpur hamlet (Revenue village Thokar) is 388 meters, which does not comply to the revised siting criteria vide order no.ENV.I-19/2010 18226 of F&E, Govt. of Orissa Dt.6/8/2010. Consent to operate in favour of the unit upto 31/3/2010 issued vide this office letter no.684 dt.20.3.08 is hereby revoked and it is instructed to stop operational activities immediately. It is also to inform you that as per the recent direction of the Hon’ble High Court dt.4/8/2010 passed in WPC No.9101/2009-M/S. Trishakti Stone Crushing Unit and others vrs State of Orissa and Others that all stone crushing units which are operating without complying with the siting criteria and without approval of the State Pollution Control Board shall stop functioning and to relocate the present site as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court.” 4.During the course of hearing of this appeal, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and as there were contradictory reports as to the distance of the unit from habitation, we directed the Regional Officer as well as the Tahasildar, Hindol by our order dated 11.10.2010 to make an inspection of the spot in presence of the appellant and submit a report indicating whether there is any unauthorized occupant and/or construction over the lands in the surrounding village and whether the constructions, if any, have come up after 2008 and more specifically after submission of the report by Engineer Subhadarsini Das, A.E.E. of the Regional Office, Angul. In terms of the aforesaid order, the Regional Officer and the Tahasildar conducted the joint inspection on 24.11.2010 and submitted their report, which was placed before us along with a memo filed by the learned Law Officer of the Board on 4.12.2010. The conclusion recorded by the inspecting officers in their joint inspection report is quoted herein below. “Three plots (nos.3564, 3559 & 3877) of Dullavpur at 810m, 810m & 800m respectively from the crusher unit have authorized habitations. The plot nos. 5496 and 1140 are of kissam-Gochar under the Govt. Rakhita Khata which suggests unauthorized habitations. The habitations on the plots (plot nos. 1139, 1138, 5495 & 1135) within 500 mtrs. away from the crusher unit are situated in ‘Taila2’ kissam which have not been converted into ‘Gharbari’ kissam that indicates that there are habitations inside 500 meters radius of the stone crusher unit. However, it is difficult to say about the establishment of the habitations as there are no records available. It is understood from the habitants in the area that they established these constructions before the establishment of the said crusher. The ‘Kaladamini Thakurani’ established on plot no.3903 of kissam - Bijeshthali in Dullavpur is a worship place under a tree where worship is offered by the passer by and the nearby villagers who organize their prayers here twice annually in the months of ‘Bhadraba’ and ‘Chaitrya’ of the regional calendar’. 5.In view of the above, the sole question that falls for consideration is whether the stone crusher unit of the appellant violates the revised siting criteria as laid down in paragraph 2 of the order dated 6.8.2010 issued by the State Govt. in Forest and Environment Department for the stone crusher units in the State, vide Annexure-6. For better appreciation of the point in issue, paragraph 2 of the revised siting criteria in Annexure-6 is quoted below: “No stone crusher unit shall be allowed to operate within 500* mtrs. from the established authorized habitation, educational institution, hospitals, courts and public offices. The stone crusher will not be considered to be violating the siting criteria, if new habitation comes up within the restricted area of 500 mtrs. from the established authorized habitation, educational institution, hospitals, courts and public offices. The stone crusher will not be considered to be violating the siting criteria, if new habitation comes up within the restricted area of 500 mtrs. after consent to establish is granted by the State Pollution Control Board.” 6.The case of the appellant is that the crusher unit was established in the year 2005 on plot no.5582, Khata No.798 in Mouza Karanda of Dhenkanal district after obtaining necessary siting clearance certificates from the competent revenue authorities as there was no habitation within a radius of two kilometers, as indicated in the report of the Tahasildar, Hindol, dated 7.12.2006, vide Annexure-1. The R.O. on the basis of the siting criteria certificates issued by the Collector, Dhenkanal, dated 7.1.2008, vide Annexure-3, granted consent to operate in favour of the appellant unit on 20.3.2008, which was valid upto to 31.3.2011. 7.On behalf of the invervenors, it is submitted that 20 habitations are situated on the plots located within one kilometer from the appellant unit. They have specifically alleged that there are habitations on plot nos. 5495, 5496, 1139, 1138, 1140 and 1135, which are situated within 500 mtrs. from the crusher unit of the appellant. It is further alleged that so far as plot no. 3903 is concerned, the Kissam of such plot is recorded as Bijesthali and is being used as place of worship by the nearby villagers, which comes within the prohibited area of 500 mtrs. 8.The Board in its written note of arguments while supporting the joint inspection report dated 24.11.2010 contended that since the appellant unit has violated condition no.2 of the revised siting criteria, the order of revocation of consent to operate is legal and valid. 9.Considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and the joint inspection report dated 24.11.2010 which, inter alia, reveals that plot no.3903 is a place of worship where prayer is being offered by the passer by and nearby villagers who organize their prayers twice in a year particularly in the months of Bhadraba and Chaitrya, we find that place of worship does not come within the restricted places indicated in the revised siting criteria in Annexure-6. So far as habitation on plot nos. 5496 and 1140 is concerned, the same being Gochar land under govt. So far as habitation on plot nos. 5496 and 1140 is concerned, the same being Gochar land under govt. Rakhita Khata, as indicated in the join inspection report, shall be treated to be unauthorized habitation, As to the habitation on plot nos. 1139, 1138, 5495 and 1135 is concerned, though the same is located within 500 mtrs from the appellant unit, yet they have not been converted into Gharbari from Taila-2 Kissam. It is further stated in the joint inspection report that it is difficult to say about the exact date of establishment of habitation on such plots. Though the habitants of the area stated before the inspecting authorities that they constructed their residences much before establishment of the appellant’s crusher unit, no documentary evidence with regard to their claim has been produced save and except the R.O.Rs., voter identity cards and electricity bills issued in favour of one of the intervenors, namely, Biswanath Nayak, which clearly show that the electricity was supplied to his lift irrigation points and the Taila lands of the intervenors have not been converted to homestead land. So, in our considered opinion, there is no authorized habitation over the aforesaid lands and the crusher unit of the appellant does not violate the siting criteria in regard to its location from habitation. 10.For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the crusher unit of the appellant does not in any way violate the siting criteria laid down by the State Govt. in the Forest and Environment Department order dated 6.8.2010, Annexure-6. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 28.9.2010 passed by the Regional Officer, State Pollution Control Board, Angul, revoking the consent to operate in Annexure-5 is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Board shall now consider the application of the appellant pending for grant of further consent to operate the unit in accordance with law since in the meantime validity of the consent to operate has expired on 31.3.2011. PROF. G.B. BEHERA, MEMBERI agree. DR. C.R. MOHAPATRA, MEMBERI agree. Appeal allowed.