JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Shri Vajinder Jain son of Shri Sudershan Jain, resident of village and Post Office Seri, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P.- respondent No.8, filed an application for establishment of a stone crushing unit over Khasra No. 1/1, admeasuring 0-20-25 hectare in Mohal Gadiyara, Mauza Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh A joint inspection committee was constituted by the State Geologist - respondent No.4 to inspect the site and furnish its appraisal report. The said Committee, after conducting joint inspection, submitted its site appraisal report, favouring establishment of the unit. On 12.5.2010, local Panchayat, i.e., Jalari, issued its No Objection Certificate through its Pradhan for establishment of such unit. In furtherance thereof, the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board respondent No.3, accorded consent to establish the unit, subject to further permissions to be granted by the Department of Industries of the State and also obtaining permissions/ sanctions from various other departments under the provisions of various environmental laws of the land. Yog Raj petitioner No.1, Smt. Santosh Kumari petitioner No.2, Om Raj petitioner No.3 and Smt. Sukha Devi petitioner No.4, approached this Court by way of present Civil Writ Petition No. CWP No.7951 of 2011 praying for quashing of the said Joint Inspection Reports dated 15.7.2010 and 21.9.2010 as also the resolution dated 12.5.2010 passed by the concerned Gram Panchayat. This writ petition filed on 9.9.2011 was listed in Court on 13.9.2011. 2. Similarly one Shri Ashok Thakur, Proprietor of Maheshwar Stone Washing and Crushing Industries, resident of village Kuthera, P.O. Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., filed an application on 3.8.2010, for establishment of a stone crushing unit over Khasra No. 207/1, admeasuring 1-33-31 hcts. In Mohal Kuthera, Mauza Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh A joint inspection committee was constituted by the State Geologist - respondent No.4 to inspect the site and furnish its appraisal report. The said Committee, after conducting joint inspection submitted its site appraisal report favouring establishment of the unit. On 11.8.2009, local Gram Panchayat i.e. Mann, issued its No Objection Certificate through its Pradhan for establishment of such unit. The said Committee, after conducting joint inspection submitted its site appraisal report favouring establishment of the unit. On 11.8.2009, local Gram Panchayat i.e. Mann, issued its No Objection Certificate through its Pradhan for establishment of such unit. In furtherance thereof, the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board, respondent No.3 issued letter dated 8.8.2011, according consent to establish the unit subject to further permissions to be granted by the Industries Department of the State and obtaining permissions/ sanctions from various other departments under the provisions of various environment laws of the land. 3. Desh Raj petitioner No.1, Roshan Lal petitioner No.2, Shri Chander Kumar petitioner No.3, Smt. Meena Kumari petitioner No.4, Smt. Reeta Devi petitioner No.5 and Smt. Sukhan Devi petitioner No.5 approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.7949 of 2011 praying for quashing of the said Joint Inspection Report dated 6.9.2010 as also the resolution dated 11.8.2009 passed by the concerned Gram Panchayat. This writ petition filed on 8.9.2011 was listed before the Court on 13.9.2011. 4. On 13.9.2011 both these petitions were directed to be listed together for hearing before us. 5. Noticeably both the writ petitions were filed through the very same counsel and Sukhan Devi is common petitioner in both these petitions. Significantly in both these writ petitions, Joint Inspection Committee relaxed the conditions/parameters of distances on the ground that on the spot there exists a natural barrier. Before us, there was a serious dispute with regard to existence of such natural barrier. Consequently, on 6.1.2012 this Court constituted a Committee of Local Commissioners to visit the respective sites and after inspecting the same, furnish their report. A single report, separately dealing with both the projects stands filed by the Local Commissioners. The Local Commissioners have found that with respect to both these projects, in fact no natural barrier exists on the site as was so observed by the Joint Inspection Committee. Consequently notice was issued to the concerned officers, who conducted the joint inspection. These officers filed their affidavits explaining their perception about the word "natural barrier". 6. Thereafter, both these writ petitions were de-linked in terms of our order dated 20.4.2010 and heard separately. 7. CWP No.7951 of 2011 (instant petition) was heard separately and judgment reserved on 20.4.2012 whereas writ petition being CWP No.7949 of 2011 was heard separately and judgment reserved on 11.5.2012. 6. Thereafter, both these writ petitions were de-linked in terms of our order dated 20.4.2010 and heard separately. 7. CWP No.7951 of 2011 (instant petition) was heard separately and judgment reserved on 20.4.2012 whereas writ petition being CWP No.7949 of 2011 was heard separately and judgment reserved on 11.5.2012. As such, both these petitions are being disposed of vide separate judgments. 8. To ensure that ecological balance is maintained within the State of Himachal Pradesh and also to protect environmental degradation and human health hazards and also to achieve the purposes and objectives of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, by virtue of its powers delegated or otherwise, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Science and Technology, issued Notification dated 29.4.2003 laying down guidelines for establishment of the stone crushing units within the State of Himachal Pradesh. Taking into consideration the topography, availability of less land and requirement to maintain the otherwise fragile ecology of the hills, following criteria for setting up of a stone crushing unit, from various points of public institution/utilities/places were laid down:- S.No. Criteria Distance 1. Minimum distance from national highway/ Nearest state highway 100 Mts. 2. Minimum distance from the District Headquarter 1.5 kms. 3. Minimum distance from any town/Notified Area committee 1.00 kms. 4. Minimum distance from Village Abadi Deh 250 Mts. 5. Minimum distance from Hospital or Educational Institute 1.00 Kms. 6. Minimum distance from Springs, Canals, reservoirs and functional water supply schemes 100 Mtrs. 7. Minimum distance from notified Lakes and Wetlands 500 Mts. 9. In terms of Clause 1.2.1 of this Notification, all distances are required to be measured, as crow flies, from the highest node of the crusher conveyor belt to the outer periphery of the revenue unit or feature concerned. Clause 1.2.2 of the Notification, however, stipulates relaxation of the distance "in case of presence of any natural barrier between the site of the Unit and any of the features indicated in the guidelines". Clause 1.3.1 of the Notification stipulates that applicant has to apply/obtain provisional registration from the department of Industries for obtaining pre-production clearances from other Government Departments. Clause 1.2.2 of the Notification, however, stipulates relaxation of the distance "in case of presence of any natural barrier between the site of the Unit and any of the features indicated in the guidelines". Clause 1.3.1 of the Notification stipulates that applicant has to apply/obtain provisional registration from the department of Industries for obtaining pre-production clearances from other Government Departments. Site where such unit is to be established by the applicant is first to be appraised and approved by a Joint Inspection Committee headed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) and consisting of officer or representative of Divisional Forest Officer; Himachal Pradesh State Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board, Public Works Department, Irrigation and Public Health Department, Department of Tourism and Geologist or Mining officer. 10. Only on the basis of approval of the Committee after its visit, the State Pollution Control Board can issue consent to establish and consent to operate such Unit. 11. By way of a subsequent Notification dated 10.9.2004, these parameters stood amended to the following effect:- S.No. Criteria Distance for Existing Stone- Crushers (crow flight distance in meters) Distance for Stone-Crushers to be set up in Future (crow flight distance in meters) 1. Minimum distance from National Highway or State Highway 50 (horizontal distance 150 2. Minimum distance from link road or other roads --- 75 3. Minimum distance from district Head Quarter 1,500 1,500 4. Minimum distance from Town or Notified Area Committee 1,000 1,000 5. Minimum distance from Village- abadideh 250 500 6. Minimum distance from hospital and educational institutions 300(horizontal distance) 1,000 7. Minimum distance from a spring, Canal, reservoir or functional water supply scheme 100 --- 8. Minimum distance from notified lakes and Wetlands 500 500 9. distance from natural water spring ----- 500 10. Minimum distance from notified Parks ----- 2000 11. Minimum distance from Sanctuaries ----- 1000 12. Minimum distance from bridge-site ----- 200 upstream 300 downstream 12. Significantly, vide very same Notification it stood clarified that where stone crushing units already stand established within the aforesaid distances, extra pollution control devices and well designed artificial barriers, to keep air and noise pollutions well within prescribed limits shall be installed. 13. It is seen that Geological Wing of Department of Industries has also issued policy guidelines for control of location, installation or working of stone crushers and their registration in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 13. It is seen that Geological Wing of Department of Industries has also issued policy guidelines for control of location, installation or working of stone crushers and their registration in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is seen that not only the owner of the unit is to strictly observe the environmental laws of the land i.e. (i) the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and rules framed thereunder; (ii) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and rules framed thereunder; (iii) The environment (Protection) 1986 and rules framed thereunder; and (iv) The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, but also he has to submit a return by 10th of every month and officers of various departments of the State are to consistently monitor and inspect the units. It is also seen that registration of the stone crushing unit, after obtaining consent to operate, from the Pollution Control Board, is valid for a period of two years (Form-B). The owner of the Unit has to apply (Form-A) six months, prior to the expiry of the said period, for renewal. However, if such application is not disposed of before the expiry period of registration, period of registration is deemed to be extended till an order is passed thereupon. 14. In the instant case, on the application of Shri Vajinder Jain-respondent No.8, State Geologist - respondent No.4 constituted a Joint Inspection Committee of the concerned Officers This Committee inspected the site on 15.7.2010 and observed that except for following, all other parameters stood fulfilled:- S.No. Criteria Distance for Existing Stone- Crushers (crow flight distance in meters) Distance for Stone- Crushers to be set up in Future (crow flight distance in meters) V Minimum distance from village Deh Abadi 500 a) 451 mts. AbadiDeh village Gadiyara b) 250 mts. house of Amarjit village Charun not in Abadideh c) 398 mts. house of Rattan Chand not in Abadi deh 15. However, the Joint Inspection Committee relaxed the aforesaid parameter by holding that "but here is natural barrier in between proposed crusher site and unit". Noticeably site was again inspected and distances re-measured on 21.9.2010, when the Committee reiterated its opinion and approved establishment of the unit. 16. Based on the aforesaid report, Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board issued letter of consent dated 8.6.2011, allowing the applicant to establish its stone crushing unit on the approved site. Noticeably site was again inspected and distances re-measured on 21.9.2010, when the Committee reiterated its opinion and approved establishment of the unit. 16. Based on the aforesaid report, Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board issued letter of consent dated 8.6.2011, allowing the applicant to establish its stone crushing unit on the approved site. The department of Industries, Government of H.P., in terms of letter dated 22.3.2011 also granted approval of the mining lease for a period of five years for the said unit. The local Panchayat i.e. Gram Panchayat, Jalari, in terms of Resolution dated 12.5.2010 also issued its No Objection certificate for establishment of the said unit. In furtherance of the same, private respondent has taken steps for establishing the Unit. It appears that local people objected to the same and also made various representations (Annexure P-2 to Annexure P-6) to the concerned quarters but without any success. 17. The present writ petitioners have thus assailed the action of the respondents and have prayed for quashing of the Joint Inspection reports dated 15.7.2010 and 21.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) and the Resolution dated 12.5.2010 (Annexure P-16) passed by Gram Panchayat, Jalari. 18. Notice in the petition was issued and respondents have filed their responses. 19. It is noticed that petition was filed with an accompanying affidavit of Yog Raj i.e. petitioner No.1. It has come on record that this petitioner, prior to the filing of the instant petition had already filed a Civil Suit for injunction on 30.3.2011 before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, praying for a decree restraining the co-sharer (private respondent herein) from raising any type of construction over the suit land. It be only noticed that suit land is where the instant private respondent wanted the Unit to be established. It is also seen that this very petitioner also moved an application before the Tehsildar (Assistant Collector), alleging that the private respondent had encroached upon the Government land, which fact, after inquiry was found to be false by the revenue authorities. Significantly this fact was also withheld from this Court. Further, it is averred in the petition that petitioner No.1 has "garden and agricultural land" and "a tube-well" at a distance of 30 mts. from the place where stone crushing unit is to be established. Significantly this fact was also withheld from this Court. Further, it is averred in the petition that petitioner No.1 has "garden and agricultural land" and "a tube-well" at a distance of 30 mts. from the place where stone crushing unit is to be established. Private respondent has placed revenue record to show that this land is Banzar Kadim and not an agricultural land. It is only in the last 3-4 months that the said petitioner has put the same to agriculture use, perhaps with an oblique motive of stalling the project. Allegedly this was so done after he failed to get establishment of the unit stalled. Petitioner No.1 also lodged a complaint before the appropriate authorities with regard to the status of the private respondent as an agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh, which fact is also not mentioned in the petition. Petitioner No.1 further alleged that there is a tube-well within a distance of 30 meters of the site. However, as per the Local Commissioners' report what is termed as a tube-well is actually a simple water pump installed for lifting flowing water from the Khud. It is a temporary make shift arrangement. Thus we are of the considered view that petitioner No.1 has not approached this Court with clean hands. He has not only misrepresented but also suppressed material information from this Court and his acts of filing the present Public Interest Litigation cannot be said to be bonafide. 20. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed this petition, but are entertaining the same as we find that certain important issues, touching the functioning of appropriate statutory authorities and their perception and interpretation of certain clauses of Notifications dated 29.4.2003 and 10.9.2004 have resulted into an illegal establishment of a unit. 21. As noticed earlier, undisputedly village Abadi Deh of Village Gadiyara is at a distance of 455 mts. from the place where the unit has been established. It is less than the prescribed limit of 500 mts. Inspection Committee relaxed this condition by observing that natural barrier exists between the unit and the said Abadi Deh. 22. Petitioners' also claim that Joint Inspection Report is faulty for the reason that (a) Abadi Deh is at a distance of just 300 mts. It is less than the prescribed limit of 500 mts. Inspection Committee relaxed this condition by observing that natural barrier exists between the unit and the said Abadi Deh. 22. Petitioners' also claim that Joint Inspection Report is faulty for the reason that (a) Abadi Deh is at a distance of just 300 mts. from the unit; (b) land of Sukha Devi, petitioner No.4 and agriculture land of Yog Raj, petitioner No.1 is at a short distance only; (c) There is a tube-well and natural source of water within the radius of 30-150 mts (d) there is a private training institute by the name of Maa Jawala Industrial Training Institute at a distance of 517 mts; (e) there is a temple at a distance of 350 mts.; and lastly (f) private respondent was legally not entitled to purchase the land in question, not being an agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh so as to fall within the definition of an 'agriculturist" under the provisions of Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and as such, an illegal sale transaction has taken place in his favour. 23. At this juncture we may note, that by taking the highest node of crusher conveyor held for the purpose of measuring the distances, the Local Commissioners appointed by this Court found the distance in terms of crow flies from the said crusher site as under:- House of Smt. Sukha Devi 497 meters Bilkaeshwar Mahadev Temple 398.57 meters House of Shri Kishori Lal 300 meters Old Bawari 285 meters House of Shri Moti Ram 350 meters Garden(Bagh)/agriculture land of Shri Yog Raj 77 meters Water lifting site/tube well 195 meters Gardiyara Village 418 meters Maa Jawalaji Polytechnic/ITI at Village Jalari 600 meters Flowing water of Kunah Khad 32 meters. Criteria Distance 1. Minimum distance from national highway/ Nearest state highway 100 Mts. 2. Minimum distance from the District Headquarter 1.5 kms. 3. Minimum distance from any town/Notified Area committee 1.00 kms. 4. Minimum distance from Village Abadi Deh 250 Mts. 5. Minimum distance from Hospital or Educational Institute 1.00 Kms. 6. Minimum distance from Springs, Canals, reservoirs and functional water supply schemes 100 Mtrs. 7. Minimum distance from notified Lakes and Wetlands 500 Mts. 24. We find that the Joint Inspection Committee understood and interpreted the term 'natural barrier' to mean the 'Khud'. 5. Minimum distance from Hospital or Educational Institute 1.00 Kms. 6. Minimum distance from Springs, Canals, reservoirs and functional water supply schemes 100 Mtrs. 7. Minimum distance from notified Lakes and Wetlands 500 Mts. 24. We find that the Joint Inspection Committee understood and interpreted the term 'natural barrier' to mean the 'Khud'. Significantly in the Khud there is a rivulet and the Unit in question has been established adjoining the Khud just at a distance of 32 meters. There is no natural barrier in existence between the Unit and the Abadi Deh of Village Ghadiyara, which is at a distance of 418 meters. Also distance between the natural water spring and the unit is less than 500 mts. In fact in the Joint Inspection Report, it is recorded that there is no water spring within the radius of 500 mts, which fact has been proved to be false by the Local Commissioners, who in no uncertain terms have found that old Bouri (water source) is situated at a distance of 285 meters at a higher elevation. Local Commissioners have further clarified that in Kunah Khud, there is free flow of running water, from where petitioner No.1 is lifting water for his fields. By way of a make shift arrangement, he has installed a water pumping motor. Even respondent No.8 has installed similar motor for the purpose of lifting the water at the very same point. It be noticed that Local Commissioners have also found that houses of Smt. Sukha Devi, Shri Om Parkash, Shri Krishori Lal and Shri Moti Ram are at a short distance of less than 500 meters from the crusher site, but then it be also observed that these houses are not situated within Abadi Deh. They are situated at isolated places in a scattered manner and as such cannot be termed as Village Abadi Deh. Photographs placed on the record show that the Unit has been established in an open area. Only on one side of the Unit an artificial barrier, by raising a wall has been created. Now this is not a natural barrier. We find that the Unit has been established at an open place and even artificial boundaries cannot be constructed so as to prevent air, noise or water pollution. 25. Only on one side of the Unit an artificial barrier, by raising a wall has been created. Now this is not a natural barrier. We find that the Unit has been established at an open place and even artificial boundaries cannot be constructed so as to prevent air, noise or water pollution. 25. On 16.3.2012 we had directed respondent No.8 to clarify the place from where he is mining the stones for the unit and whether permission as envisaged under the River/Stream Bed Mining Policy Guidelines for the State of Himachal Pradesh was obtained and, if so, from which authority. We had also directed the Mining Officer and Director of Industries to file affidavits as to whether the provisions of River/Stream Bed Mining Policy Guidelines for the State of Himachal Pradesh were considered while granting such lease to the private respondent for carrying out the mining operation in the Khud in question. 26. Pursuant to our orders, respondent No.8 has placed on record copy of the lease deed and the sanction letter. The Director of Industries has also filed an affidavit stating that application for grant of mining lease dated 30.6.2010 was considered and after receipt of report dated 15.7.2010 of the Joint Inspection Committee, permission for mining was accorded on 22.3.2011 and mining lease executed on 24.6.2011. This, he says has been so done after taking into consideration the River/Stream Bed Mining Policy. Now, significantly the Director of Industries has also accorded sanction of the mining lease on the erroneous interpretation of clause 1.2.2 of Notification dated 29.4.2003. 27. In our considered view, Joint Inspection Committee wrongly interpreted clause 1.2.2 of Notification dated 29.4.2003 while arriving at its conclusion that a natural barrier exists between the stone crushing unit and Abadi Deh of Village Gadiyara or the source of water. The Committee ought to have given a purposive interpretation to the said clause. 28. Barrier has to mean a physical barrier which prevents environmental degradation. Stone crushing unit is bound to emit particles of dust and cause air and water pollution. It definitely is going to affect nearby water sources and would thus positively be a source of hazard for human health. Prevention and preservation of environment and its maintenance is a prime concern, which has to be kept in mind by all the duty holders while according permissions and sanctions under various environmental laws of the land. It definitely is going to affect nearby water sources and would thus positively be a source of hazard for human health. Prevention and preservation of environment and its maintenance is a prime concern, which has to be kept in mind by all the duty holders while according permissions and sanctions under various environmental laws of the land. Instructions were issued by the State only with a view to exercise greater control and vigil over the stone crushing units to save the environment of the State. This was so done keeping in view the hilly terrain and fragile topography and ecology of the State. It is with this purpose that all prescribed parameters are required to be measured as crow flies from the highest node of the crusher conveyor belt to the outer periphery of the revenue unit/feature concerned. The natural barrier is not only which obstructs the physical view of the feature but something that ensures that no pollution by air (dust), water as also noise is caused at the featured places. It is seen that the Joint Inspection Committee headed by a local Senior District Officer failed to take into account this aspect of the matter while approving the site. 29. Significantly we notice that the State did not respond to various representations made by the residents of the village. Even before this Court affidavits were filed by the statutory authorities supporting the private respondent. 30. We may also notice that the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board, which has to play a key role as a watch guard, before this Court has filed a vague affidavit by simply stating that conditions were relaxed in accordance with the policy. It cannot wash away its hands off from the issue. It failed to take into account the realities and the factual position existing on the ground. We find that the Board ought to have taken some guidance from clause 1.1.1 of the notification, dated 10.9.2004 whereby directions were issued to all the existing units to ensure that extra pollution control devices and well designed artificial barriers be installed in such units so as "to keep air and noise pollution well within the prescribed limits". Thus in this background, a Khud cannot be said to be a natural barrier which would keep air and noise pollution within the prescribed limits. Thus in this background, a Khud cannot be said to be a natural barrier which would keep air and noise pollution within the prescribed limits. The term 'natural barrier' has to be construed not only as physical barrier, which obstructs the visible view, but also which protects environmental degradation. 31. We may also notice that Conservator of Forests has filed an affidavit simply stating that the forest department has a limited role to verify the forest activities in the area, such as soil erosion, nursery plantation and type of land etc. This stand of the forest department is totally unacceptable for the reason that they have not disclosed as to whether with the establishment of the unit, vegetative growth/plantation in the local forest is likely to have an adverse impact or not. Also as to whether water flowing through Khud, which is likely to be polluted, is going to have any impact on down-stream forest area or not. 32. Significantly none of the statutory authorities has considered the effect of pollution on the free flow of water in the Kunah Khud itself and the adverse impact which it is likely to have on the down stream water supply scheme known as Tilu-Jalari lift irrigation scheme, water from which is to be used for the purpose of human/livestock consumption. 33. We may notice that matter with regard to purchase of land by the private respondent is pending before the District Collector, Hamirpur for further action. We have specifically not touched this question for the reason that the private respondent has taken a stand that his father owns land in village Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, and also that he was born in said village in the year 1962. Therefore, we direct respondent-State to take prompt action in this regard, in accordance with law. Needful be positively done within a period of three months from today and action taken report, be filed before this Court. 34. For all the aforesaid reasons, we quash the Joint Inspection reports dated 15.7.2010 and 21.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) and the resultant letter dated 22.3.2011 issued in favour of the private respondent by the department of Industries. We also direct the appropriate authorities for taking action, in accordance with law, for cancellation of the mining lease executed in favour of private respondent No.8. 35. We also direct the appropriate authorities for taking action, in accordance with law, for cancellation of the mining lease executed in favour of private respondent No.8. 35. We are of the considered view that with the economic growth and increase of developmental activities within the State of Himachal Pradesh, large number of stone crushing units have been established within the State. In fact stone crushing is an industry in itself. These units are governed by the Notifications dated 29.4.2003 and 10.9.2004. Considering the long time gap, we are of the considered view that matter needs to be considered afresh by the Government/ appropriate authorities after collecting and collating all relevant material in this regard from all the concerned aurters including other States, general public and stake/duty holders and industry. Therefore, we direct the Chief Secretary to the State of Himachal Pradesh to constitute a Committee comprising of all the concerned Secretaries, including Secretary (Fishery), and examine whether existing guidelines need to be clarified/ elaborated/ amended. This shall be positively done within a period of six months from today. However, till the same is done and considering the urgency in the matter, we issue the following directions:- (1) The term 'village abadi-deh', has to mean revenue village as defined under Revenue Laws of the State. Individual, scattered houses constructed by land owners outside the revenue village, unless they are in clusters shall not be termed as 'abadi-deh'. (2) The spring, canal, reservoir or functional water supply scheme and natural water spring would include rivulets which are perennial in nature. (3) While approving the site, the authorities shall take into account the impact of pollution, which the Unit is likely to cause on such water sources as also the flora and fauna. (4) Pollution Control Board cannot be allowed to act as a mute spectator. Being a statutory regulator, it has to independently assess the impact which the project is likely to cause on the air, noise and water pollution falling within the meaning and definition of environmental laws of the land. (5) Before permission of execution of mining lease is accorded, the Director of Industries, through its independent agencies shall verify with regard to the correctness of the report of the Joint Inspection Committee, which accorded approval for establishment of the stone crushing Unit. (5) Before permission of execution of mining lease is accorded, the Director of Industries, through its independent agencies shall verify with regard to the correctness of the report of the Joint Inspection Committee, which accorded approval for establishment of the stone crushing Unit. (6) Certified copy of minutes of meeting of the concerned Panchayat issuing No Objection Certificate shall form part of the Certificate issued by the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat. (7) There shall not be any automatic renewal of registration of the stone crushing unit. All statutory authorities shall ensure disposal of the applications for renewal filed by the owners of the Units within the prescribed period. Under no circumstances there shall be deemed continuation of registration of the Unit after expiry of its original period of registration. It shall be as much a duty of the owner of the Unit as it would be that of the duty holder to ensure that application for renewal is disposed of, in accordance with law, within the stipulated period of time. Disciplinary action against the defaulting officers/officials be promptly initiated. (8) For protection and conservation of environment, so that there is minimum adverse impact and emission of pollution from the stone crushing unit, it be ensured that the unit-holder plants at least 3 rows of tall fast growing species of trees on all sides of the Unit. This would not only increase the vegetative growth of the area and make the place look beautiful but also act as a wind barrier. (9) The Unit shall ensure that aggregate is stacked in such a manner that it does not spill over to the Highways/roads which can be cause of road accidents. (10) Sign board at a prominent place outside the stone crushing unit shall be displayed indicating the name of the owner, capacity of the unit, date of registration of the unit as also its expiry, telephone number of the owner and the concerned officer to whom public can make a complaint, if any. Respondents-State shall ensure strict compliance of the same With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.