Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 88 (MEG)

Thombor Doloi v. State of Meghalaya

2022-04-19

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The brief facts of the instant case are that, without any opportunity being afforded to the petitioner, the respondent authorities had issued notices under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, demanding environmental compensation, seized the crusher machinery and vide impugned Auction Sale Notice dated 14.02.2022 had put up the same for auction. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as, the petitioner's father who had recently deceased had obtained all the necessary permissions, leases, consent to establish and to operate from all the competent authorities such as, Forest Department, Director of Mineral Resources, Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board and others. The learned counsel refers to Annexures - III to X of the writ petition to substantiate the submission that the quarrying operations were being done legally. It is further submitted that to the said demand notices, replies had been filed on 14.12.2020 by the petitioner, but that the same did not receive any consideration from the respondents. The learned counsel therefore submits that, as the inspection of the quarries, seizure of the machinery and publication of the Auction Notice being without adherence to the due process of law, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Learned Advocate General for the respondents submits that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Dayanidhi Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board & Ors. (WPC No. 338 of 2021) where by order dated 16.12.2021, this Court had dismissed the said case on the grounds of availability of alternate remedy. Senior counsel also reiterates the submissions made in WP(C) No. 42 of 2022 (Shri. Wesley Doloi vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Though a case has been sought to be made out on the plank that the petitioner was operating legally on the basis of valid permissions, the same is belied by the materials annexed to the petition itself. It is noted that, not even one demand notice annexed to the writ petition bears the name of the petitioner. Though a case has been sought to be made out on the plank that the petitioner was operating legally on the basis of valid permissions, the same is belied by the materials annexed to the petition itself. It is noted that, not even one demand notice annexed to the writ petition bears the name of the petitioner. Further, the reply (Annexure - XVII to the writ petition) as stated to have been made to the demand notice dated 20.11.2020, bearing Memo No. MPCB/GEN-327/2020/2020-2021/16 (Annexed at page - 75 to the petition) is not addressed to the petitioner but to one Binay Kalita who is not before this Court. The contents and the pleadings in writ petition are too confusing to enable this Court to discern the actual facts and situation, or the claims and grievances of the petitioner. 5. However, without further looking into these discrepancies and factual inaccuracies, as this Court has held in similar matters that there is alternative remedy against such demand notices issued under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, this writ petition does not deserve any consideration and is accordingly dismissed. 6. No order as to costs.