Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 1881
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Anil M Puri & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1093 of 2019
Decided On : 06-02-2019
V.K. Shukla, Adv., Dushyant Mainali, Adv., Satish Kumar, Adv., Sanjay Upadhyay, Adv., Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Adv., Upama Bhattacharjee, Adv., Maya Ramesh, Adv., Sanyya Negi, Adv., Vyom Raghuvashi, Adv., Mukesh Verma, Adv., Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv., Yash Pal Dhingra, Adv., Alok K Pandey, Adv., Niraj Jha, Adv., Pratima Singh, Adv., Sakshi Kakkar, Adv.
The discretion of the Pollution Control Board in granting consent to operate and the necessity of evaluating environmental impact before granting licenses for establishment of stone crushers.
Headnote:
National Green Tribunal - Pollution Control Board - The court directed the Pollution Control Board to consider pending applications for consent to operate, emphasizing that the decision to grant consent is at the discretion of the PCB. The court also highlighted the need for evaluation of environmental impact before granting licenses for establishment of stone crushers.
Fact of the Case:
The National Green Tribunal directed the Pollution Control Board to consider pending applications for consent to operate, emphasizing that the decision to grant consent is at the discretion of the PCB. The appellants argued that the respondents should not be granted licenses to establish stone crushers due to their proximity to protected areas.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no cause for grievance as the National Green Tribunal had only directed the PCB to consider the applications on their merits. The court also noted that the appellants' argument regarding construction activities for stone crushers was not pleaded before the National Green Tribunal.
Issues: Consideration of pending applications for consent to operate, evaluation of environmental impact before granting licenses for establishment of stone crushers, and lack of cause for grievance by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision to grant consent to operate is at the discretion of the Pollution Control Board, and evaluation of environmental impact is necessary before granting licenses for establishment of stone crushers.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court emphasized that it had not considered the contentions on merits, leaving it to the concerned authority to make decisions.
ORDER
1. By the impugned order dated 17.1.2019, the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, has directed the Pollution Control Board (for short, the "PCB") to consider the applications of respondent nos.5 and 6 for consent to operate, which applications have been pending before the PCB for quite sometime. Insofar as this direction is concerned, we do not find any infirmity therein inasmuch as only the PCB is directed to consider the applications on their own merits and has not directed grant of consent by the PCB. It is therefore for the PCB to evaluate the applications of respondent nos.5 and 6 on merit and to consider whether the consent can be granted or not.
2. The aforesaid order is passed in Original Application No.895 of 2018 filed by the appellants herein.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellant's case is predicated on the order dated 13.6.2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand wherein the High Court has categorically directed that no mining activity is carried out within the radius of 10 km from the boundaries of all the National Parks and other National Parks without obtaining clearance from National Board for Wildlife. He has also referred to another order dated 27.8.2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand wherein the High Court has directed that without assessing the carrying capacity of rivers Kosi and Dabka, no further licence shall be issued for establishment of stone crushers/screening plants in Tehsils Bazpur, Kashipur and Ramnagar.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that respondent nos.5 and 6 cannot even be granted licence to establish the stone crushers as the sites are at a distance of 6.6 km from the Jim Corbett Park. All these aspects are to be considered by the PCB.
5. As pointed out above, the National Green Tribunal has not passed any orders to this effect and has only directed the PCB to consider the applications of respondent nos.5 and 6 on merits . Therefore, as of today, there is no cause of grievance by the appellants and there was no reason to file this appeal.
6. We may also record another submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. He has argued that respondent nos.5 and 6 are carrying out the construction activities for establishment of stone crushers and they should not be allowed to do so in the meanwhile. This aspect was neither pleaded before the National Green Tribunal nor there is any orders. Application filed by the appellant is pending before the National Green Tribunal. It would be open to the appellants to press that application before the National Green Tribunal.
7. However, learned counsel appearing for the PCB submits that no such application has been filed by respondent nos.5 and 6 before the PCB.
8. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid directions.
9. As far as this Court is concerned, it has not considered the aforesaid contentions on merits and it is for the concerned authority to take a call on them.
