JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C.J.: On 27th December, 2006, consent to establish a stone crushing unit at Field No. 491, 493/1, 497/1, 499/1, 501, Village Kisanpur Sakulia, Pargana Bhabar 6th Khata, Tehsil Lalkuan, Nainital, was granted by the State Pollution Control Board in favour of the writ petitioner. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal against grant of the said consent to establish. Appellate Authority, by the order impugned in the writ petition, passed on 30th April, 2009, directed as under: “The appeal is partly allowed. Respondent No. 6 Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board is directed that the consent pertaining to the establishment of stone crusher granted by the Board till 31.03.2009 will not be extended further and are directed to grant consent to Dev Bhoomi Stone Company for the Natural Screening Plant at the site in question and, in case of compliance of all other conditions stipulated by law. In this relation, the decision shall be taken within a period of one month and, if consent is granted, then it should not be converted in the form of stone crushing in future till there is human habitation in the nearby area.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 2nd September, 2006, it applied for setting up of a stone crusher unit, when the Forest Department, the Revenue Department and other concerned departments gave their consent. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition, it has been stated as follows: “However a lot of time was consumed for getting the No Objection Certificate for running a Stone Crusher Unit, the petitioner in the meantime applied for obtaining the permission for running a screening plant and on the said application of the petitioner for running a screening plant, Regional Officer of the Pollution Control Board has given his consent and the same was sent to the Chief Environmental Officer of the said Board.” 3. The facts are otherwise. Petitioner made an application on 2nd September, 2006, no doubt. But to whom and for what purpose, is not known, as neither the petitioner has produced a copy of the said application, nor the District Magistrate or the State Pollution Control Board has produced a copy of the same. On 30th October, 2006, petitioner wrote a letter to the Regional Officer, Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board, Haldwani, Nainital. But to whom and for what purpose, is not known, as neither the petitioner has produced a copy of the said application, nor the District Magistrate or the State Pollution Control Board has produced a copy of the same. On 30th October, 2006, petitioner wrote a letter to the Regional Officer, Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board, Haldwani, Nainital. In that letter, it was stated that the petitioner, vide application dated 2nd September, 2006, has made a request to establish stone crusher. By that letter, petitioner held out that proceeding relating to stone crusher be continued and, simultaneously, at present, petitioner may be accorded permission to establish the stone screening plant. On 27th November, 2006, an inspection was carried out by Sri V.K. Joshi, Asst. Scientific Officer and Sri Subhash Panwar, Junior Engineer, in the employment of the State Pollution Control Board, in presence of the representative of the petitioner Sri Kapil Mudgal. After completion of the inspection, they submitted a report. The caption of the report was “Regarding No Objection Certificate for setting up of Screening Plant by M/s Dev Bhoomi Stone Company, Village Kisanpur Sakulia, Tehsil Lalkuan, Nainital”. In that report, amongst others, it was stated as follows: i. Nearest abadi (human habitation) starts from 200 meters in the south-west. ii. School and the office of Women Milk Producers Cooperative Society is situate at a distance of 90 and 150 meters respectively. iii. The residence of Shivanand, who has given no objection to the establishment of the industry, is situate 150 meters away. iv. From the ramp of the proposed plant, there is a house at 200 meters in south-east direction and two houses at 100 meters in north-east direction. v. In the east, from the boundary, one house at 10 meters and 5 houses at 100 meters are situate. vi. On Link Road in the west, one house at 100 meters and 5 houses at 200 meters and on Link Road in south-east, two houses at 100 meters and scattered abadi (human habitation) after 200 meters in the north-east and, in the south-east, school at 10 meters, which has been proposed to be shifted, the office of Women Milk Producers Cooperative Society at 75 meters, 8 houses at 100 meters, are situate. vii. In the north-west, Link Road and irrigation canal and, thereafter, vacant land is situate, in respect whereof, Ms. vii. In the north-west, Link Road and irrigation canal and, thereafter, vacant land is situate, in respect whereof, Ms. Usha Kiran Bhandari has applied for permission for setting up a screening plant. viii. A tube-well and four shops at a distance of 50 meters are situate in the north. ix. Zila Adhikari, Nainital, has approved the site for establishment of the said screening plant and Additional Zila Adhikari, Nainital, has also approved the said site for establishment of screening plant. x. The standards for establishment of stone crushers have been provided in the Mineral Policy, but no guidelines for screening plants have been fixed. xi. Level of pollution in screening plant is lesser than stone crusher. xii. Within the radius of 500 meters, 23-40 residential houses are situate, whereas no hospital, temple, bridge, river, etc. are situate within 500 meters. xiii. Four houses at 200 meters from the proposed ramp of the industry and 20-25 houses at 200 meters from boundary wall are situate. xiv. The industry has applied on the prescribed form and prescribed fee. xv. No riverbank comes within 500 meters of the proposed site. xvi. Proposed site is at a distance of about 500 meters from the National Highway. xvii. No other crusher is situate within 500 meters, though a Natural Screening Plant in the name of M/s Vinod Stone Products is being established at 300 meters and Ms. Usha Kiran Bhandari has applied for another screening plant in the north-west of the proposed screening plant. xviii. Petitioner has proposed to install three vibrating screens. xix. Water will be used for domestic and dust control. xx. The domestic effluents are proposed to be finally disposed of through septic tanks and soak pits, while effluents from washing (sand washing) are proposed to be re-used by recycling after treating in a settling tank. No effluent is proposed to be produced. xxi. Sprinklers on screening and delivery point of conveyer belt are proposed to control dust in the industry. xxii. The industry has proposed water storage tank, covering of screening section and metallic road. xxiii. A DG set of 250 KVA is proposed by the industry. The exhaust thereof shall be 3.5 meters and an acoustic enclosure for control of noise pollution is also proposed. xxiv. Total investment of the industry is stated to be Rs. 224.39 lacs and a Demand Draft of Rs. xxiii. A DG set of 250 KVA is proposed by the industry. The exhaust thereof shall be 3.5 meters and an acoustic enclosure for control of noise pollution is also proposed. xxiv. Total investment of the industry is stated to be Rs. 224.39 lacs and a Demand Draft of Rs. 10,000/- has been sent to the Board Head Quarter for No Objection Certificate fee by the industry. 4. As will be evident from the said report, there was no recommendation either in favour of or against setting up of a screening plant by the petitioner. 5. Before the aforementioned inspection was carried out, on 17th November, 2006, petitioner applied for consent to establish a stone crusher unit with a fee of Rs. 10,000/-. According to the fee structure fixed by the State Pollution Control Board, minimum initial fee is Rs. 10,000/-. If the capital investment for the industry is more than Rs. 1 crore and up to Rs. 5 crores, the initial fee payable by the industry is Rs. 50,000/-. On 17th November, 2006, when the petitioner applied, it paid a fee of Rs. 10,000/- only. Petitioner paid the additional fee of Rs. 40,000/- only on 30th November, 2006. The State Pollution Control Board has identified stone crusher as high pollution potential industry and has classified such industry as ‘Red Industry’ in relation to pollution. Therefore, when the aforementioned inspection was carried out, the inspectors applied their mind only in relation to establishment of a screening plant and not a stone crusher by the petitioner. A look at the said report would suggest that the inspectors were more concerned about the distance of school, hospital, temple, bridge, river, etc. from the proposed industry of the petitioner and were not, at all, concerned about likelihood of generation of pollutants by the industry of the petitioner and resultant effect thereof in the environment, despite the industry proposed was categorized as “Red” by the State Pollution Control Board. This happened in view of alteration of the Uttaranchal Mineral Policy, 2001, effected on 17th October, 2002. In the policy of 2001, while dealing with minor minerals, a direction was given who shall be entitled to carry out minor mineral mining activities and in what circumstances. The said policy did not address anything pertaining to any industry using mined minor minerals as its raw material. In the policy of 2001, while dealing with minor minerals, a direction was given who shall be entitled to carry out minor mineral mining activities and in what circumstances. The said policy did not address anything pertaining to any industry using mined minor minerals as its raw material. On 17th October, 2002, the said policy was altered, where it was provided that, in respect of establishment of stone crushers in Uttaranchal, the following are to be taken care of: i. The stone crusher should be at a distance of at least 500 meters from school, college, hospital, temple, bridge, canal. ii. For being free from pollution, No Objection Certificate shall be taken from Pollution Control Board. iii. A certificate from Revenue Department to the effect that the proposed stone crusher is at a minimum distance of 500 meters from river bank and reserved forest area and from main road (National and State Highway) and the inter se distance between two stone crushers, which should be at least 500 meters, shall have to be obtained. 6. In that view of the matter, the logical conclusion would be that, on 27th November, 2006, when the aforementioned inspection was carried out, the inspectors, instead of inspecting pollution angles, were more concerned about No Objection of the State Pollution Control Board. However, the said inspection, which was concerned for grant of a No Objection for installation of a screening plant, without any further inspection, resulted in grant of the said consent to establish a stone crusher dated 27th December, 2006 after exchange of some inter departmental correspondence, where also no effort was made to ascertain whether the industry will or will not affect the existing human habitation surrounding the proposed site. Principally for that reason, the appellate authority interfered with such grant and passed the order impugned in the writ petition. 7. It is the contention of the petitioner that, by an order dated 27th May, 2007, Sub-Divisional Magistrate restrained the petitioner’s unit from raising any further construction or from carrying out any further development activity. That resulted in filing of a writ petition, whereon, an order was passed by this Court and, in terms thereof, a joint inspection was carried out, whereafter, the said order dated 27th May, 2007 was recalled. That resulted in filing of a writ petition, whereon, an order was passed by this Court and, in terms thereof, a joint inspection was carried out, whereafter, the said order dated 27th May, 2007 was recalled. It was contended that the said inspection would establish compliance by the petitioner of all conditions given for establishment of a stone crusher unit. From the records, it appears that a joint inspection was carried out on 30th May, 2007 by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haldwani; Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani; and Regional Officer, Pollution Board, Haldwani, pursuant to the direction dated 22nd May, 2007 issued by the District Magistrate, Nainital. In that report, the following were highlighted: i. From the proposed site, school, college, hospital and temple are not situate within 500 meters. ii. A small irrigation canal is 10 meters away from the boundary wall of the proposed site. iii. The distance between the proposed site and other stone crusher unit is more than 500 meters. iv. At a distance of 250 meters from the proposed site, Joshi Natural Screen Plant is situated. v. The proposed stone crusher is situate at a distance of about 735 meters from the river bank, reserved forest area. vi. Proposed stone crusher is at a distance of more than 500 meters from the main road, National Highway and State Highway. vii. No Objection Certificate, from environmental point of view, has been obtained from the Pollution Control Board in respect of the proposed stone crusher. viii. In respect of the proposed stone crusher, earlier a report has been received from Regional Environment Officer, Revenue Department and Forest Department. ix. On the directions of the District Magistrate, from 27th May, 2007, a ban has been imposed on the construction work of the proposed stone crusher until further orders. 8. The policy of the Government talked about a canal, but did not say as to the nature of the canal. It is apparent from the above report that there is a small irrigation canal passing 10 meters away from the proposed site. Significantly, existence of the said canal, without obtaining a clarification from the Government as regards its policy pertaining to the canal, was totally ignored while the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was revoked. 9. It is apparent from the above report that there is a small irrigation canal passing 10 meters away from the proposed site. Significantly, existence of the said canal, without obtaining a clarification from the Government as regards its policy pertaining to the canal, was totally ignored while the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was revoked. 9. The above inspection report would also suggest that the said inspection was also not carried out for the purpose of ascertaining pollution effect of the proposed industry. As against that, on 17th July, 2007, a report was filed by the Assistant Environment Officer, where it was clearly stated that selection of the site by the petitioner for the proposed stone crusher is not suitable (in the context of the complaints), keeping in view the said complaints and considering the public interest, public health, environment and agriculture, with a recommendation to revoke the No Objection Certificate (consent to establish) dated 27th December, 2006. 10. The counsel for the State has submitted that, in 2008, the State Government has clarified that there is no distinction between a stone crusher and a screening plant. If the clarification in the policy is regarded as clarification, then, in law, it must be deemed that what has been clarified was already in existence. In such view of the matter, it would be deemed that permission to establish a stone crusher to the petitioner would be in contravention of the aforementioned policy of the Government, inasmuch as, the distance between the site for establishment of the stone crusher of the petitioner is less than 500 meters from an existing screening plant (stone crusher). In the event, such clarification is regarded as prospective, then also, having regard to the fact that an endeavour had only been made to ascertain whether the petitioner could establish a screening plant and not a stone crusher unit, petitioner cannot be permitted to establish a stone crusher now and, accordingly, there is no scope of interference with the order challenged in the writ petition. 11. Further more, on 3rd July, 2008, a new policy pertaining to Stone Crusher/Screening Plant and Pulverize Licensing Policy has been made. Grant of a licence under the said policy has not yet been considered. 12. In the circumstances, there is hardly any scope of interference in the writ petition. The same is liable to be and should be dismissed. 13. Further more, on 3rd July, 2008, a new policy pertaining to Stone Crusher/Screening Plant and Pulverize Licensing Policy has been made. Grant of a licence under the said policy has not yet been considered. 12. In the circumstances, there is hardly any scope of interference in the writ petition. The same is liable to be and should be dismissed. 13. The writ petitioner, however, has contended that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to enter into the dispute as was raised by respondent No. 1 before it. No doubt, the Appellate Authority exercised jurisdiction as granted to it by the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Both the said Acts grant appellate jurisdiction to hear appeal against consent to establish an industry, preferred by any person aggrieved thereby. Therefore, respondent No. 1 could prefer an appeal against consent to establish, as was granted in the instant case. In the event, it is contended that it was not a consent to establish that was granted by the State Pollution Control Board to the petitioner, but only a No Objection, then, in view of the provisions contained in the said Acts, read with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1115, petitioner is not entitled to establish a polluting industry, that too, bracketed as a ‘Red’ pollutant. 14. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition.