Back
2012 Supreme(Jhk) 1736
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Prakash Tatia, CJ and P.P. BHATT, JJ.
Dr. S.S. Narnolly : Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. : Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 1785/2007; I.A No. 831/2011
Decided On : 17.12.2012
For the Appellant/Petitioner: M/s. Jitendra Singh, A.K. Das, H.P. Singh
For the Respondent: State Mr. R.R. Mishra
For the Respondent No. 6: M/s. A. Gupta, A.R. Choudhary
For the Respondent RRDA: Mr. A.K. Singh
For the Respondent Pollution Board: Mr. A.K. Pandey
For the Intervener : M/s. M. Dey, A. Kumar
Headnote:Ranchi Planning Standards and Building Bye - laws, 2002 - Clauses 2.46, 36 and Appendix-M---Establishment of car showroom and service centre in a residential area - industry and nonpolluting commercial activities are not permissible in the area where they cannot be established in view of the scheme of the planned development of the city--- only certain essential commercial activities have been made permissible, without which the residents of a residential area cannot have comfortable living and such use of property as has been allowed to owner is not falling under any permissible use or as such even in case of special appeal (special permission). (Paras 32 and 40)
(1974)2 SCC 506; (1996)3 SCC 212; (2004)11 SCC 1; (2006)3 SCC 434; (2006)3 SCC 399 : 2007(1) JLJR (SC)199; (2009)15 SCC 705; AIR 1990 SC 1460; (2012)2 SCC 232; 2012(2) SCC 232 : 2012(1) JLJR (SC)103 - Relied Upon.
(1985)1 SCC 51; (2007)6 SCC 448; (1993)4 SCC 363; (2003)1 SCC 70; (2009)15 SCC 30 : 2010(1) JLJR (SC)33 - Distinguished.
Prakash Tatia, CJ.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(1) For a declaration that
(a) NOC granted by the Pollution Control Board, vide Memo No.N-84 dated 9.2.2005 under section 25 and 26 of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act and under section 21 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act and their subsequent renewals are illegal.
(b) Emission consent order issued by Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board by Reference No.1294 dated 17.6.2005 under section 21 of the Air Act and its subsequent renewals are illegal.
(c) Discharge consent orders issued under Reference No.1295 dated 17.6.2005 under section 25 and 26 of the Water Act and its subsequent renewals are illegal.
(2) For a declaration that NOCs, consent orders and licenses under Factories Act to respondent no.6 in a residential area is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
(3) For a direction for dismantling and shifting of respondent no.6’s unit being in contravention of Air Act, Water Act, Environment Act, Hazardous Wastes (Handling & Management) Rules and Building Bye Laws under Ranchi Regional Development Authority Act and emitting fumes causing carcinogenic effect on human body.”
2. The factual background of this litigation is relevant.
A letter dated 28.3.2007 complaining about construction of one Maruti Car Showroom and Workshop dated 28.3.2007 addressed to the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of Jharkhand was received by the High Court and on 30.3.2007, it was ordered to be placed before the Bench hearing PIL and therefore, it was registered as Public Interest Litigation being W.P (PIL) No.1785/2007. On 3.5.2007 the Division Bench headed by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice observed that the letter shows that some personal interest is also involved and therefore, directed this petition to be treated as regular writ petition (private person writ petition) and directed to post before the Single Judge having the roster of the writ petition. Faced with this situation, the author of the letter, the petitioner, moved an interlocutory application for amendment in the writ petition obviously, for the reason that the writ petition was registered on the basis of the letter to the then Hon’ble Chief Justice and detailed pleadings were not in the letter. After hearing the parties, by the order dated 16.1.2009, learned Single Judge allowed the application for amendment. In view of the above liberty to file amended petition, the petitioner filed amended writ petition and then respondents filed counter affidavit. Thereafter this petition was tagged with another PIL being W.P (PIL) No.1076/2011. In W.P(PIL) No.1076/2011, an order was passed that one I.A No.831/2011 filed in W.P(PIL) No.1076/2011 would be heard along with the present writ petition, being W.P (C) No.1785/2007 and it was also ordered that the writ petition which was registered on the basis of the letter and was converted into private interest litigation as W.P (C) No.1785/2007 would also be heard along with W.P (PIL) No.1076/2011. However, W.P (PIL) No.1076/2011 has been decided by a separate order dated 24th August, 2011 and therefore, the present writ petition, being W.P (PIL) No.1785/2007 converted as W.P (C) No.1785/2007 and I.A No.831/2011 remain pending for decision of this Court. One another application I.A No.870/2011 was also pending which was also heard along with this writ petition.
3. Coming to the facts of the case, it will be appropriate to mention here that the petitioner, Dr. S.S. Narnoly, sent a letter to the High Court in the name of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice on 28.3.2007 alleging that he is a resident of purely residential area in the capital city, Ranchi, of Jharkhand State at Kanke Road and the said area also houses the residence of seniormost functionaries of the State and some of the highest dignitaries of the State are residing in the same area. It is stated therein that surprisingly in this residential area, a commercial com
