The main legal point established is that decisions impacting environmental conservation must be based on accurate interpretation of relevant legal provisions and orders.

JUDGMENT :

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.03.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon; seeking for a direction upon the respondent No.4 to allow the petitioner to run his Brick Kiln; for a further direction upon the respondent Nos.1 & 2 not to submit the proposal for declaring Eco Sensitive Zone around Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary at the earliest and move the Supreme Court as per the liberty given in its order dated 11.12.2018.

2. The facts involved in the instant writ petition is that the petitioner herein had purchased a Brick Industry vide two registered Deeds of Sale dated 23.08.2010. The petitioner, thereupon, applied for No Objection Certificate before the Respondent No. 4, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon for opening of the Brick Kiln in his name. The Respondent No. 4, by an order dated 02.09.2011, granted permission to operate the Brick Kiln on the said land thereby imposing certain conditions including procurement of required certificate from the Pollution Control Board, Assam. The Circle Office as well as the Mayong Gaon Panchayat gave No Objection. The land of the petitioner was subsequently reclassified as industrial land pursuant to an order dated 10.04.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon. It further reveals that the Member Secretary, Pollution Control Board, Assam issued ‘Consent to Establish’ on 28.10.2011 for setting up the Brick Industry. The petitioner, thereupon, spent huge amount of money as stated in the writ petition and after the establishment of the chimney etc., the petitioner applied for consent to operate from the respondent No.2 enabling him to run the brick industry. It reveals thereafter that there were various litigations between the petitioner and the private respondents before this Court. However, vide an order dated 23.11.2017 passed in WA No.241/2017, there were certain directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court on the basis of a joint affidavit filed by the petitioner and the private respondents. In terms with the joint affidavit, the relevant portion of which is quoted herein below, certain terms and conditions were agreed upon by and between the petitioner as well as the private respondents. The said relevant paragraphs are quoted herein under:-

“1. That the Applicants respectfully submit that the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon may be directed to decide as to whether the Brick Kiln in the name of M/s Bhawani Brick (BBA Brick, Proprietor Shri Dilip Chetri) should be allowed to run and whether the same will affect the Appellants’ surrounding land or the environment. The Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon while deciding the issue shall take into consideration the reports of the Pollution Control Board, Agricultural Officer and the Forest official afresh.

2. That the Applicants respectfully submit that all the concerned officials of Pollution Control Board, Agricultural Officer and Forest Officer should give their respective reports disclosing the scientific basis of such reports.

3. That the Applicants respectfully submit that the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon may be directed to decide the issue after hearing the Appellant and the Private Respondent No.1, Sri Dilip Chetri.

4. That the Applicants respectfully submit that the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon may be directed to decide the matter within a period of 4(four) weeks.”

3. The Division Bench of this Court, on the basis of the above quoted paragraphs vide the order dated 23.11.2017, set aside the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.06.2017 in WP(C) No.7048/2016 and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon to reach a decision on the matter with regard to the fate of the Brick Kiln after considering the reports of the stake holders mentioned in the joint affidavit and after affording opportunity of hearing the petitioner as well as the private respondents herein. The Division Bench of this Court further directed that until disposa