JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, CHAIRMAN. — Aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the State Pollution Control Board, Orissa, under Section 21 of the AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (‘Air Act’ hereafter) conveying consent to establish stone crusher in favour of respondent No.-3 M/s. BVSR Construction Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, in Mouza Venkatpur under Parlakhemundi Tahasil of Gajapati district for production of stone chips and stone dust, the appellant, Shri M.C. Rao has preferred this appeal under Section 31 of the Air Act. 2.The appellant has alleged that the State Pollution Control Board, Orissa, (hereinafter called ‘the Board’) has granted the impugned order of consent to establish in violation of the siting criteria since the stone crusher of respondent No.3 is located at a distance of 360 meters from Venkatapuram village, 50 meters from the village approach road and 500 meters from a temple on a hill-top. It is also alleged that the dust emitted from the illegal operation of the crusher has caused air pollution affecting not only the local residents and people engaged in the nearby agriculture farm but has also affected the fertile agricultural lands on account of deposit of dust. It is further alleged that consent to establish was granted by the Board without considering the objections of the local inhabitants. 3.Upon issuance of notice, respondent No.3 appeared and filed its counter stating that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and the appellant is in no way aggrieved or affected by the order of the Board granting consent to establish the crusher unit. It is stated that in terms of the agreement dated 14.7.2010 executed with the Executive Engineer, Paralakhemundi R&B Division, the respondent-company has been awarded with the work of widening and improvement of State Highway No.4 connecting Gunupur, Kashinagar and Paralakhemundi with a stipulation to complete the work by January, 2013. In order to provide metal chips of different sizes for construction of the said State Highway, the respondent-company applied for grant of consent to establish the crusher unit for a temporary period, i.e., till completion of the road work, and the Board after due enquiry and considering the no-objection certificate of the villagers of Venkatpur Gram Panchayat and the siting clearance given by the Collector, Gajapati, vide memo. dated 13.10.2010, and on being satisfied that the unit was not coming under the categories of highly polluting industries, granted consent to establish the crusher unit by order No.2434 dated 19.10.2010. Thereafter, the respondent-company established the crusher unit adopting the pollution control measures and installing various equipments to prevent air pollution. The Board after considering the inspection report dated 19.4.2011 submitted by its Regional Officer and the Asst. Environment Engineer at Berhampur and finding that pollution control measures have been taken in the unit to minimize air pollution, by communication dated 6.5.2011 has allowed the respondent-company to operate the unit for a period of three months thereof. It is also stated that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent has taken steps for construction of a high boundary wall encircling the crusher unit. As to the allegation of the appellant that the local people raised objection to the setting up of the crusher unit, the respondent No.3 has stated that there is no opposition from any of the villagers including two brothers of the appellant, namely, M. Meghanadha Rao and Dr. M. Lokanadhan at no point of time to the setting up of the unit in the larger interest of the State and copies of such no objections have been annexed as Annexures-D/3 and E/3. That apart, different land owners including the aforesaid brothers of the appellant have also leased out their lands for setting up of the crusher unit for a period of two and a half years, vide the lease deeds in Annexure-F/3 series. 4.The Collector and District Magistrate, Gajapati, respondent No.2, has filed his comments stating that the sitting clearance certificate was issued in favour of respondent No.3 on the basis of the enquiry made regarding the stone crusher and the enquiry report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Hadubangi and following the instructions of the Revenue Department and the Forest and Environment Department. 5.While issuing notice, this Authority also directed the Board by its order dated 11.5.2011 to inspect the crusher unit and take appropriate steps against the unit if the same was in operation without consent to operate. 5.While issuing notice, this Authority also directed the Board by its order dated 11.5.2011 to inspect the crusher unit and take appropriate steps against the unit if the same was in operation without consent to operate. Pursuant to such direction, the Board produced the inspection report of the Regional Officer of its Regional Office at Berhampur dated 13.6.2011 wherein it is indicated that the unit is a temporary one and after the Collector granted sitting clearance certificate, the Board granted consent to establish by the impugned order dated 19.10.2010 thereafter by order dated 6.5.2011 the unit was allowed to operate for a period of three months from the order subject to compliance of the conditions indicated therein in response to the application of respondent No.3 dated 15.4.2011 seeking consent to operate for a period of two years, i.e., 2011-13. During inspection the R.O. observed that though the unit has provided water sprinkling arrangement at six potential dust generating points, yet it had not provided the barrier wall and had not installed the silo for collection of stone dust from the conveyor belt and reduction of fugitive dusts. Since the unit was not in operation on the date of inspection, monitoring of the ambient air quality could not be done and the operation was suspended temporarily. The R.O. in the remarks column has indicated that item No.5 of the Order dated 6.8.2010 of the State Govt. in Forest and Environment Department prescribed siting criteria for stone crusher units to the effect that “permission for temporary stone crusher exclusively for construction of N.H./S.H. may be allowed for the construction period.” 6.After hearing the appellant in person and learned counsel for respondent No.3 so also the learned Law Officer of the Board and on perusing the inspection report of the Regional Officer, this Authority by its order dated 18.6.2011 directed the R.O. to make a joint inspection of the area along with a Scientist/Horticulturist to be nominated by the Director of Horticulture, Orissa, to ascertain whether there is truth in the allegation of the appellant that the crops, vegetation and plantation in the surrounding areas of the crusher unit as well as in the agricultural land of the appellant has been damaged/affected due to the dust emitted from the stone crusher of respondent No.3 and submit a report. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, joint inspection was conducted by the R.O., Horticulturist, Paralakhemundi and the Tahasildar, Kasinagar, in presence of the appellant, representative of respondent No.3 as well as villagers numbering about 60 of Mouza Venkatapur on 27.7.2011 at 10.00 A.M. The inspecting officers interacted with the villagers and wanted as to whether they are affected due to the dust pollution of the respondent unit and whether there was any damage to the crops. The observations made in the said report, which was filed by the Board along with a written note of submission, are as follows : “1.The unit has installed water sprinklers at the potential dust generating points. 2.The unit has constructed the barrier at three sides by using GCI sheets including the front side of the horticulture firm of Sri M.C. Rao facing to crusher side. 3.Dust deposit in the nearby agricultural land and over the leaves of the parennial horticultural crops of surrounding area of the existing crusher is not observed at present. 4.The damage of the nearby vicinity and horticulture firm of Sri M.C. Rao has not been affected at present.” 7.In view of the aforesaid report, the allegation of the appellant that due to the dust emitted from the stone crusher the agricultural land and crops and plantation in the surrounding area of the crusher unit including the horticulture farm of the appellant have been affected is not correct. As regards violation of siting criteria, on going through the materials on records, we find that the Collector has granted the siting clearance certificate after conducting due enquiry and considering the enquiry report submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector dated 4.9.2010 and finding that the crusher unit conformed to the siting criteria fixed by the State Govt. We also find that the unit being a temporary one has been set up to provide chips and metals for widening and improvement of S.H. No.4 and as per the revised siting criteria stipulated by the State Govt. in Forest and Environment Department in its order dated 6.8.2010, permission for temporary stone crusher exclusively for construction of N.H./S.H. can be granted for the construction period subject to satisfaction of required pollution control norms and, therefore, no siting criteria is applicable to the present unit since the same is a temporary one. in Forest and Environment Department in its order dated 6.8.2010, permission for temporary stone crusher exclusively for construction of N.H./S.H. can be granted for the construction period subject to satisfaction of required pollution control norms and, therefore, no siting criteria is applicable to the present unit since the same is a temporary one. But we find that respondent no.3 unit has not complied with certain conditions as indicated in the Board’s communication dated 6.8.2011 granting consent to operate for a period of three months, which has in the meantime expired. It is now open to the Board to consider grant of consent to operate in favour of the respondent unit for the period applied for, i.e. 2011-2013 subject to the fulfilment of the pollution control norms and conditions and in case consent to operate is granted, the Board shall make periodical inspection of the unit preferably once in a month to verify compliance of the pollution control measures conforming to the prescribed standards in respect of S.P.M. During such inspection, if any deviation in adopting the pollution control measures to meet the prescribed standards is noticed, the Board shall take appropriate action against the respondent No.3-unit in accordance with law. The appellant is also at liberty to bring to the notice of the Board about non-adherence of pollution control measures by respondent No.3-unit. 7.The appeal is dismissed with the directions/observations made above. Prof. G.B. BEHERA, MEMBERI agree. Dr. C.R. MOHAPATRA, MEMBERI agree. Appeal dismissed.