Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1205 (GAU)

Eaqub Ali Ahmed v. State of Assam and Ors.

2015-09-17

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2015
Manojit Bhuyan, J.:-- Heard Mr. S.S. Talukdar, learned counsel representing the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel representing respondent Nos.3,4, 5 and 8 assisted by Mr. A. Sarma, Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 and Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel representing respondent No.9. 2. The petitioner had set up an industry for the manufacture of Hume Pipes located at village Satvanirtup in the district of Barpeta way back in February 2009. According to the petitioner, the same was set up after observing certain formalities, namely, upon the "Consent to Establish" Certificate from the Pollution Control Board, Assam and No Objection Certificate issued from the office of Paschim Howli Gaon Panchayat, Barpeta. 3. The first hitch in the running of the industry came in the form of letter dated 17.4.2012 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta whereby the Circle Officer of Barnagar Revenue Circle was directed to take steps for halting operation of the industry. The said letter of 17.4.2012 was the subject-matter in WP(C) No.2369/2012. By order dated 31.8.2012, the said writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to file representation as against the letter/order dated 17.4.2012 with further direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta to dispose of the same on merits by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the complainants at whose instance the order dated 17.4.2012 had been issued. 4. A representation was made by the petitioner and upon consideration of the same as well as upon hearing the petitioner and the complainants, the order dated 6.5.2013 came to be issued under the hand of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. By the said order dated 6.5.2013, which is under challenge in the present proceedings, a direction was made to the effect that the petitioner cannot be permitted to run/operate the Hume Pipe Industry at the present place until fulfilment of the pre-conditions as per the provisions of law as indicated in the said order of 6.5.2013 as well as until steps are taken to mitigate the grievances of the local public. 5. From a perusal of the order dated 6.5.2013, it transpires that the Hume Pipe Industry set up by the petitioner is located in Basti land and close to Mosque. Also, there are schools and colleges located close to the industry. 5. From a perusal of the order dated 6.5.2013, it transpires that the Hume Pipe Industry set up by the petitioner is located in Basti land and close to Mosque. Also, there are schools and colleges located close to the industry. The existence of the industry has added to the pollution affecting those around it. In the said order of 6.5.2013, it is also indicated that the said industry had been established on agricultural and basti land without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the district administration, thereby violating section 25A and 25B of the Re-assessment Act, 1936. Also, there has been violation of the Terms and Conditions of the "Consent to Establish" issued by the Pollution Control Board, Assam. For the fact that agricultural and basti land having been utilised for industrial and commercial purpose and also on account of violation of the conditions in the "Consent to Establish" Certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board, Assam and in view of non-compliance of the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, etc., a decision was made that the petitioner cannot be permitted to operate the Hume Pipe industry at the present location. 6. This order of 6.5.2013 is put to challenge primarily on the ground that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta is without power and jurisdiction to stop the petitioner from operating the industry, inasmuch as, if there be any question with regard to pollution etc. the matter can only be looked into by the Pollution Control Board, Assam. It is contended that in the absence of any adverse order passed by the Pollution Control Board, Assam, the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta stopping operation of the industry on grounds of sound, voice and air pollution cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 7. An affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent No.3, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, Assam has been filed in line with the observations made in the order dated 6.5.2013. In the said affidavit, it is contended that Barpeta District Administration was not aware of the establishment of the Industry prior to 10.4.2012 as because the same was located at remote place of village Satbhanirtup under Barnagar Revenue Circle. In any case, the said industry is situated in a residential area on a plot of annual patta land. In the said affidavit, it is contended that Barpeta District Administration was not aware of the establishment of the Industry prior to 10.4.2012 as because the same was located at remote place of village Satbhanirtup under Barnagar Revenue Circle. In any case, the said industry is situated in a residential area on a plot of annual patta land. The said area where the Industry is located, according to respondent No.3, is not at all a commercial or an industrial area. It is indicated that a public complaint was received on 10.4.2012 and accordingly, the Circle Officer of Barnagar Revenue Circle was directed to enquire and to submit report by letter dated 17.4.2012. As regards the licence issued by the Gaon Panchayat is concerned, it is indicated that the said Panchayat is without authority to issue 'No Objection' for establishment of an industry within a residential/noncommercial/non-industrial area without first making a proper enquiry as required under the law. So far as supply of electricity is concerned, it is indicated that the said industry is availing supply from a domestic line. Mention is also made that although the petitioner has been granted the "Consent to Establish" certificate, however, it is without the "Consent to Operate" certificate from the Pollution Control Board, Assam and as such, the petitioner is operating the industry in violation of the provisions of the relevant rules. 8. The facts above have been noticed. At the outset it is observed that the order of 6.5.2013 had been passed in strict accordance to the principles of natural justice. To that end, the petitioner cannot be allowed to make any grievance. The observations made in the order dated 6.5.2013 with regard to sound pollution, voice pollution and air pollution as well as vibrations created while operating the industry, are matters that can be taken cognizance of by the District Administration. It is not necessary that the same requires to be substantiated by orders of the Pollution Control Board, Assam. A public complaint had been received and due enquiry was also made. The result of the enquiry are the observations recorded in the order dated 6.5.2013. It is not necessary that the same requires to be substantiated by orders of the Pollution Control Board, Assam. A public complaint had been received and due enquiry was also made. The result of the enquiry are the observations recorded in the order dated 6.5.2013. The industry being located in a residential area and operating without the "Consent to Operate" Certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board, Assam and having regard to the fact that the said industry is affecting the Masjid building as well as the schools and colleges situated close by and, above all the same being run without No Objection Certificate from the District Administration, no infirmity is found in the order dated 6.5.2013 issued under the hand of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. 9. The writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 10. The parties are left to bear their own costs.