Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 463
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
F.M. REIS & K.L. WADANE, JJ.
John V. Pereira, Khamamoll, Curchorem & Others – Appellants
Vs.
Curchorem-Cacora Municipal Council, through its Chief Officer & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 123 of 1999
Decided On : 05-01-2015
For the Petitioners:Norma Alvares, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2 to R6, D. Lawande, R7, J. Godinho, R8, Rohan Shirodkar, R9 & R19, J. A. Lobo, R10, R13 & R20, R. G. Ramani, Advocates
For the Intervenor:Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Deep Shirodkar, Advocate
Compliance with environmental regulations and directions from the pollution control board is essential to minimize pollution and protect public health.
Headnote:
Pollution - Railway Yard - Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) - Order dated 31.12.2012 - Ambient Air Quality Monitoring - Construction of closed shed - Transportation of iron ore - Compliance with directions - Disposal of petition
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed due to pollution in the Railway yard at Curchorem Railway Station caused by the transportation of mineral ore from different mining companies. The Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) issued directions to minimize pollution, including monitoring air quality, constructing a closed shed, and regulating the transportation of iron ore.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recommendations of the GSPCB and the inspection report would meet the grievances of the petitioners to minimize dust pollution at the site. The court disposed of the petition by accepting all the recommendations and directions, emphasizing compliance with the law.
Issues: The issues involved pollution in the Railway yard, compliance with GSPCB directions, and subsequent events affecting pollution levels.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to dispose of the petition by accepting the GSPCB recommendations and directions, emphasizing compliance with the law. It also allowed the parties to apply for any clarification or modification of the directions and to assail the order passed on such representation.
Final Decision: The rule was disposed of with no orders as to costs.
(F.M. Reis, J.)
1. Heard Ms. Norma Alvares, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. D. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 2 to 6, Mr. Godinho, Advocate for the Respondent no. 7, Shri Lobo, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 9 and 19, Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Intervenor no. 1, Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 10, 13 and 20 and Shri Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 8.
2. The above Petition came to be filed in this Court on the ground that there is pollution in the Railway yard at Curchorem Railway Station in view of the transportation of mineral ore from different mining companies which were availing of the facilities of transport by railways.
3. During the course of the hearing of the above Writ Petition, the Respondent no. 7 was called upon to examine the level of pollution at such yards and make some recommendations to erase or eradicate the pollution at loco. Consequently, the Respondent no. 7 passed an order dated 31.12.2012 issuing some directions to minimize the pollution at the Railway yard. The directions in the said Order dated 31.12.2012, inter alia, includes:
“i. The Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) will continue to monitor the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring twice a week at the said three locations till 25th of January 2013.
ii. The South West Railway Yard shall be directed to submit a feasibility report for construction of closed shed by 15th January, 2013.
iii. The iron ore cargo shall be evacuated with immediate effect but not later than 7th january 2013, so as to enable the Board to have a baseline date and accordingly, Board should be intimated.
iv. The ore should be transported by trucks which are properly covered with tarpaulin and it shall be ensured that they shall not be overloaded. Besides, cleaning the tyres before leaving the yard to get rid of any dust, must be undertaken.
v. The length of the GI barricade shall be extended upto the residence of M/s Seema Sanzgiri.
vi. The South West Railway shall provide tar/concrete road at all locations within the railway yard where handling of ore and movement of trucks takes place and cleaning/sweeping/washing be done regularly.
vii. The PWD shall tar the shoulders of the public road on the Southern side of the Railway Station running parallel to the platform.
The Board shall issue necessary direction in this regard to the concerned parties.”
4. On perusal of the said directions, inter alia, the Railway Authorities were called upon to construct a shed to avoid dust pollution at the site. There was an objection raised by the Railway Authorities considering the cost effect of putting up such shed raised in the above Writ Petition. Consequently, this Court directed the Respondent no. 7 to make a fresh inspection at the site and considered the objections of the Railway Authorities. As such, an affidavit was filed by the Member Secretary of the Respondent no. 7 dated 11.06.2013, inter alia, stating at para 3, thus
“3. I state that the officials of the Board have inspected the site for the purpose of ascertaining the factual situation vis a vis the statements made in the affidavit of Respondent no. 9. I state that according to the report it is feasible to construct two independent covered sheds with side enclosures, leaving necessary spaces for rail and truck movement, one in between the road over-bridge for the traffic and foot bridge by keeping permissible distance from Foot Bridge and road over bridge. Similarly the 2nd covered shed can be constructed in between the foot bridge and upto the end of the yard towards Margao side by keeping permissible distance from the foot bridge. The respondents have shown the total length of the yard, distance between two bridges and distance from Foot Bridge till end of the yard on west end. A copy of the Report of inspection conducted by Board officials on 23.04.2013.”
5. It appears that
