JUDGMENT : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The allotment order bearing No.300/JIADA, Ranchi dated 12.02.2018 in favour of M/s Devkamal Hospital and Research Centre, Ranchi (Respondent No.8) is under-challenge in the instant Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. PETITIONERS’ CASE 3. Petitioner no.1 is an Association of owners/ partners /Directors of the industries located at Tupudana Industrial Area, Tupudana, Ranchi and petitioner no. 2 is a company having a Chemical & Paint Industry manufacturing, and allied items located in Tupudana Industrial Area for last 5 years. 4. Petitioner no.3 is a Company having unit of fabrication and another unit of foundary for iron and steel casting and is in operation in the Industrial Area, Tupudana for the last more than 30 years on the adjacent plot. 5. The challenge of allotment proceeds on the ground that the said allotment is in complete derogation of the provisions of law as under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Rule 8 of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. 6. The sum and substance of the plea raised on behalf of the Petitioners is that as per the norms of Sound, water and Air Pollution, Hospital and industries cannot co-exist in the same area and despite this, the allotment has been made. Consequently, the Petitioner companies which have been functioning in the industrial area since long as per Rule may be prosecuted for infraction of the relevant pollution rules and may have to wind up. 7. Under Rule 3(5) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, an area comprising not less than 100 metres around Hospital, Educational institution and Court may be declared as silence area/ Zone for the purpose of these rules. As per the Schedule to this Rule, the permissible limit of Noise pollution in an industrial area is of 75 decibel (in Scale A) and for silence zone, it is of 50 decibel. 8. Deputy Director on behalf of Secretary, Government of Jharkhand has sworn an affidavit to the effect that industry and hospital cannot co-exist because the employees in the industry may be infected by the patients from the Hospital and the patients in the Hospital may also suffer on account of the air, sound and water pollution being emitted from the industries. 9. 9. Project Clearance Committee (PCC) which comprises of M.D. (RIADA), Secretary (RIADA), Development Officer (RIADA), representative of Jharkhand Chambers of Commerce (Resp.6), Jharkhand Small Industries Association (Resp.5) are also members. In the allotment of plot in favour of Hospital failed to raise objection to such allotment (Para 14 of the writ petition). 10. Allotment was made favouring the hospital bypassing the rules which will be apparent from the fact that on an application, the allotment of land for establishment of a hospital made to M/s Shrinika Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited was rejected by the Project Clearance Committee (PCC) of Respondent(s)- JIADA on 21.09.2022 precisely on the ground that there was a requirement of declaration of silence zone within periphery of 100 metres of the Hospital, it is not possible in an industrial area. 11. Matter of allotment of land for establishment for Hospital in an industrial area has been taken and is pending before this Court vide W.P. (PIL) No.2697 of 2021. CASE OF RESPONDENT NO.8-HOSPITAL 12. In pursuance to public notice for allotment of vacant land situated in the various industrial areas in the state of Jharkhand, Respondent No.8 submitted application for allotment of land for establishment of Multi Speciality Hospital at Tupudana Industrial Area. The said plot is especially earmarked for establishment of Hospital. Three other entities also expressed their willingness to develop the super specialty hospital, but Respondent No.8 was the only healthcare establishment which proposed to establish Multi Speciality Hospital. 13. High-powered committee being Project Clearance Committee approved the proposal wherein no objection was raised from any quarter. Subsequent thereto, provisional land allotment order was passed on 11.01.2018 and final allotment order was made on 12.02.2018. Physical possession of the land was handed over and statutory clearance for establish was given by Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (R-7). Under memo no. B-39 dated 10.10.2019 the healthcare establishments are exempted from obtaining consent to establish. JIADA (R-3) granted approval for construction of building vide memo dated 28.08.2019. After incorporation of R-8 as company ownership of the land has been transferred in favour of Dev Kamal Health Care Pvt. Ltd. 14. It is argued that real cause for opposing the upcoming hospital is because Petitioners had to remove illegal encroachment from the plot on which the hospital is being constructed. 15. After incorporation of R-8 as company ownership of the land has been transferred in favour of Dev Kamal Health Care Pvt. Ltd. 14. It is argued that real cause for opposing the upcoming hospital is because Petitioners had to remove illegal encroachment from the plot on which the hospital is being constructed. 15. Hospital has no objection to the running of industry in its vicinity as boundary wall on the side of industries adjoining the campus of the hospital has been made in such manner that noise pollution from the industry will not adversely affect the occupants of the hospital. Certificate to that effect has been issued by the Housing Technology Consultant that external wall of the hospital is 10 inches brick wall done with AAC Blocks and RCC walls which reduces external noise up to 75% to 80%, which is below 35 decibels inside the rooms of the hospital. In such circumstance, the noise if at all generated outside in the industry will not affect the hospital in any manner. In view of the said construction, operation of industries will not be adversely affected. To facilitate this, hospital has been surveyed by the Institute for Environmental Management which has been duly affiliated by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and the said report shows that the hospital meets the standard norms of permissible ambient noise. 16. In view of the above, the learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.8 who is also present in the Court and attendance has been filed on his behalf submits that the issue of noise pollution will not be raised to obstruct the function of industry. 17. In reply, it is submitted by the Petitioners that misleading false statement made in para 7 of the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent no.8 in para 11 wherein it has been stated that there was no direction to stop the construction. Contrary to the said averment, vide letter dated 26.11.2022 to respondent no.8 issued by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. It was informed that his application dated 29.06.2022 was rejected and he was directed not to carry out any construction work on the proposed site. Despite this, the petitioner continued with the construction and has made false statement on affidavit before this Court. FINDING 18. It was informed that his application dated 29.06.2022 was rejected and he was directed not to carry out any construction work on the proposed site. Despite this, the petitioner continued with the construction and has made false statement on affidavit before this Court. FINDING 18. Facts are plain and simple that Respondent No.8 was allotted the plot in the industrial area earmarked for hospital, by the process of open bidding, in which other hospitals did participate for allotment. It was an open bidding process in which none, including the President and representatives from Federation of Chamber of Commerce and Industries, who were also part of Projection Clearance Committee, raised any objection to the said allotment, for establishment of the Multi Speciality Hospital. 19. Respondent cannot be held responsible for the decision of the Govt. for allotment in its favour in the industrial area. 20. Matter for consideration is whether this by itself is sufficient to cancel the allotment of land in favour of the hospital and direct demolition of the hospital that has come in the area. 21. This Court is of the view that it will not be just and equitable in the facts and circumstance of the present case to order for cancellation of allotment and demolition of structure. 22. This is for the reason that for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction there should be infraction of some fundamental or legal right of the petitioner in the present and not a perceived or anticipated violation in future. 23. In the present case, writ jurisdiction has been invoked in anticipation of infraction of legal right of the industry in its functioning, which may arise in future if any objection is raised on the part of the hospital or its occupant to the running of the industry on account of air or noise pollution. 24. Here the hospital authorities have not come forward with any claim that running of industry will adversely affect the patients of the hospital. On the contrary it has been stated that the walls have been constructed in such a manner that noise pollution will not affect the occupants of the hospital. Respondent no.8 has given an undertaking that issue of noise pollution will not be based on their behalf. On the contrary it has been stated that the walls have been constructed in such a manner that noise pollution will not affect the occupants of the hospital. Respondent no.8 has given an undertaking that issue of noise pollution will not be based on their behalf. Industry has been functioning in the area since long, and in future if such issue is ever raised, it is the hospital which will have to relocate and not the industry. 25. Respondent No.8 is a bona fide allottee of the plot by competent authority and substantial part of construction has been made. 26. Present writ appears to have been filed to settle score, as the Petitioner had to demolish and remove the boundary wall on commencement of construction of hospital. Concern for violation of pollution norms is nothing but a camouflage to wreak vengeance against the respondent hospital. Under the circumstance, I do not find any legal right of the Petitioner to have been infringed for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court. Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.