Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 140
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Jumd Ete S/o Shri Dugjum Ete and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of A.P. and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 122 of 2021, WP(C) 323 of 2021
Decided on : 01-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Lissing Perme, Kemo Lollen
Strict adherence to statutory guidelines and requirements is essential for the operation of Stone Crusher Units.
Headnote:
Stone Crusher Unit - Violation of Guidelines - Arunachal Pradesh Stone Crusher Guideline of 2012 - Clause 1, Clause 6 - Minimum distance specifications - NOC issuance - Geo Appraisal Report - Deputy Commissioner's recommendation - Judicial review
Fact of the Case:
Two writ petitions were filed, one challenging the trading license and NOC issuance for a Stone Crusher Unit, and the other challenging the shutdown of the same unit. The primary contention was the violation of the Arunachal Pradesh Stone Crusher Guideline of 2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issuance of NOC and the recommendation for the Stone Crusher Unit operation were prima facie in violation of the Guidelines of 2012, as the minimum distance specifications were grossly violated. The court allowed one writ petition and dismissed the other, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the Guidelines and statutory requirements.
Issues: Violation of Arunachal Pradesh Stone Crusher Guideline of 2012, NOC issuance, Deputy Commissioner's recommendation, Geo Appraisal Report, minimum distance specifications
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the sacrosanct nature of the minimum distance specifications under the Guidelines of 2012 and held that the recommendation for NOC issuance was prima facie in violation of the Guidelines, leading to the unsustainable operation of the Stone Crusher Unit.
Final Decision: One writ petition was allowed, the other was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated. The court directed that any reconsideration must strictly adhere to the Guidelines and statutory requirements.
JUDGMENT :
Both these writ petitions being connected are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The first writ petition being WP (C) 323 (AP) 2021 has been filed by 11 (Eleven) numbers of petitioners with a common cause of action whereby challenge has been made to a trading licence No.WS/TL-37/2015 dated 31.03.2015 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo to the private respondent No. 8. The aforesaid licence was for running the business of Stone Crusher Unit by the respondent No. 8 in the name and style of M/s BLE Stone Crusher at Darka Village. The petitioners have also challenged the No Objection Certificate (for short, ‘NOC’) dated 10.11.2020 and the consent order, dated 26.08.2020 issued in favour of the said respondent No. 8. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the impugned action and the orders have been issued in violation of the Arunachal Pradesh Stone Crusher Guideline of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as Guidelines of 2012).
3. On the other hand, the above private respondent No. 8 as the petitioner has filed WP (C) 122 (AP) 2021 challenging, inter alia the action of the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo in shutting down the Stone Crusher Unit vide order, dated 16.07.2020. It is submitted in the petition that the Unit was being run by following the due process of law and by a strength of a valid trading licence which was renewed from time to time and the Guidelines of 2012 were also duly followed
4. I have heard Shri T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) 323 (AP) 2021. I have also heard Shri K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) 122 (AP) 2021 who is also the private respondent No. 8 in the first writ petition (WP (C) 323 (AP) 2021). Shri I. Riram, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate is present for the official respondents.
5. Shri Tara, the learned counsel has referred to the Guidelines of 2012 which were notified on 03.01.2013 in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette for issuing NOC of Geology and Mining Department for establishment of Stone Crusher Unit in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines of 2012). Attention has been drawn to clause-1 requiring such NOC and under Clause 1.1.1, a duly project report is necessary. Under Clause 6.1, there is a requirement to follow minimum distance of the Stone Crusher Unit from sensitive and vulnerable places which have been specified thereunder.
6. For ready reference, the specification is extracted hereinbelow:-
| Sl. No. | Distance from | Distance |
| 6.1(a) | Class A and above town and cities limit | 3km |
| 6.1(b) | Other towns | 2km |
| 6.1 (c) | Village/human habitation | 1km |
| 6.1(d) | Wildlife Sanctuary/reserve forest | 5km or buffer zone declared for the same by the State Government |
| 6.1(e) | National Highway/State Road (from centre line) | 200meters |
| 6.1(f) | Sensitive areas such a Educational Institute/Government/Office s/market/hospital/religious places/tourist spots | 1km |
| 6.1(g) | River/lake/stream | 500mtr |
| 6.1(h) | Bridges/Hydro Power Dams/Water Supply diversion Structures etc | 1km |
7. Shri Tara, has thereafter referred to the field spot verification report dated 21.02.2020 which was conducted by the Assistant Conservator of Forest of Forests pursuant to the Guidelines of 2012. As per the same, the Unit was found to be about 11mtrs from Sipu river whereas the minimum distance under the Guidelines should be 500mtrs. It was found that the same was about 442mtrs from the NEFTU whereas the requirement is of 1km from the Educational Institute. It has been further stated that it is less than 1km from RKM School teacher’s quarters. However, the NOC was given on 10.11.2020 by the Department of Geology and Mining without taking into consideration the aforesaid field verification report. By referring to the Geo Appraisal Report, Shri Tara, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even the said report would
