[2010(4) RLW 3449 (Raj.)]
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Radhey Stone Crusher (M/s.)
Versus
Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board & Anr.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5841 of 2010
Decided on: 20.07.2010
Writ petitions rejected.
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.--Since all these writ petitions relate to refusal to operate the Stone Crushers in villages Indroli, Angrawali, and Fatehpur in Tehsil Kaman District Bharatpur under the provisions of Section 21A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and closure of the Stone Crushers in the said villages under Section 31 A of the Act, they are disposed by this common order.
SBCW 5841 of 2010
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner M/s. Radhey Stone Crusher, prayed as under:
(i) Call for the entire record of the case from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board.
(ii) quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 5.2.2010 Annexures 6 and 7 passed by the learned Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board being without jurisdiction and contrary to the law.
3. The petitioner has a stone crusher in village Indroli Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur. The petitioner stated in the writ petitioner that on the application dated 2.1.2007 submitted by the petitioner, the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (in short State Board) after due enquiry investigation and having satisfied that the crusher of the petitioner has taken all the required anti air pollution control measures granted its consent to establish vide its order dated 31.8.2007 under the provisions of Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (in short Act of 1981). The consent was granted subject to the conditions mentioned in the order. The petitioner also submitted an application for consent to operate its stone crushing plant under the provisions of section 21 of the Air Act. The State Board vide letter dated 31.8.2007 granted consent to the petitioner for operating stone crushing unit for a period upto 30.7.2008. The conditions imposed were the same conditions which were imposed while granting consent to establish. The petitioner stated in the writ petitioner that the authorities of the State Board forced the petitioner firm to seek consent to operate else the crusher shall be closed down. It has been given out in the petitioner that the petitioner submitted copies of photographs dated 28.7.2009 showing that (a) metaled road within premises of the crusher (b) vibrating screen has no holes (c) water spraying systems (d) there exists system of cleaning and wetting of the ground in the premises of the unit (e) roads inside the premises of the unit are metaled. The petitioner submitted application for renewal of consent to operate on 11.9.2008. The unit was inspected by the Board officials on 26.9.2008. It may be mentioned that on 29.12.2008 the State Board issued a show cause notice to the petitioner that the State Government has terminated the mining lease of masonry stone in Kama and Deeg areas. Therefore, there is no lawful source of raw material to feed the stone crusher i.e. other than illicit mining. Besides, this it was mentioned that the stone crusher causes health hazards and nuisance to the pilgrims of Brij Chourasi Kos Prikarama Marg. It was mentioned in the notice as under:
1. Whereas the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called as the "Act") came into force in the whole of the State of Rajasthan w.e.f. 16.6.1981.
2. And where the Air Act was enacted to provide for the prevention and control of air pollution and for the maintaining and restoring the wholesomeness of air.
3. And where keeping this in view of the Air Act Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter called as the "Board") has been conferred powers to take such steps as are necessary for the prevention control and abatement of air pollution.
4. And whereas M/s. Radhey Stone Crusher, (hereinafter called as the industry) is engaged in production of Stone grit and discharges polluted air.
5. And whereas the State Government has terminated the mining leases of masonry stone in the Kama and Deeg area. Therefore, there is no source of raw materia
4. A.P. pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors. ((1999) 2 SCC 718)
6. Pollution Control Board vs. Mahabir Coke Industry ((2000) 9 SCC 344)
8. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India
9. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395)
10. Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P. (1985) 2 SCC 431)
11. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India ((1988) 1 SCC 471)
12. M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath ((2000) 6 SCC 213)
13. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India ((2007) 1 SCC 110)
14. Mohd. Haroon Ansari vs. District Collector, Rangareddy District
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.