The main legal point established is that adherence to pollution control measures and compliance with environmental regulations are crucial in determining the legality of granting environmental clearance and 'No Objection Certificate' for industrial activities.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The present writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for restraining the Union of India from issuing an Environment Clearance Certificate in favour of M/s. Pioneer Ltd. respondent No. 5 permitting it to establish and run a Distillery Unit and a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the recommendation/No Objection Certificate issued by the Punjab Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board).

2. The petitioners are the residents of the villages situated in the close vicinity of Industrial Growth Centre, Defence Road, Village Ranipur near Pathankot, where respondent No. 5 has set up a unit for the manufacture of Gluten and Glucose. It is alleged that the said unit is emitting pollution much beyond the prescribed limits. It is not only polluting the air but is also causing water pollution as effluents are discharged with water without treatment. The area does not even have a proper sewerage system and thus, the waste disposal is becoming a health hazard for the residents of the area.

3. The petitioners have further pleaded that as industrial growth was not taking place in the Industrial Growth Centre, therefore, the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. who has set up such Industrial Growth Centre, converted the land meant for setting up of Industrial Units into residential area. About 400 plots were allotted in the year 2000/2001. The residential plots were carved out adjacent to the unit of respondent No. 5. Village Akhwana with a population of about 3000 is situated at a distance of about 100 yards from the outer wall of the unit of respondent No. 5. About 30 villages surrounded such Industrial Growth Centre within a radius of 5 kilometres with a population of 1,25,000. It is pleaded that despite the pollution emitted by the unit already run by respondent No. 5, the said respondent is proposing to set up a distillery for manufacturing of alcohol in the said area.

4. By virtue of notification dated 27.1.2004, Environment Clearance is contemplated from the Central Government after granting a public hearing. A public notice was issued to convene a public meeting in pursuance of the said notification for 29.4.2003. Since only few persons turned out on t he said d ate, the public hearing was organised on 13.5.2003 at the factory gate of unit of respondent No. 5, on which date about 1500 persons from the vicinity including the petitioners and other respectables attended such meeting. It is the case of the petitioners that public clearly objected in the said meeting the setting up of a distillery as it would completely destroy the area on account of air and water pollution. The level of sub soil water would be further lowered and the air pollution on account of the burning of fuel comprising of rice husk would create a hazard to the health of the residents of the area which was already economically backward. The air pollution was alleged to be apparent to the naked eye as the effluents in the air were settling on the people who had "gathered for the public hearing. Though the public meeting was attended by a large number of residents but as the outcome of the meeting was not likely to be favourable to respondent No. 5, another public hearing was organised on 29.10.2003. The said meeting was organised at P.W.D. Rest House, Pathankot, which is about 8 kilometres from the spot whereas the previous public hearing was organised at the factory gate of the unit of respondent No. 5. It is further pointed out that the petitioners reached at the spot for meeting but none of the officials of respondent No. 2 were present. A memorandum was submitted to the Sub Divisional Officer (C) objecting to setting up of distillery at the said place, but subsequently, the petitioners came to know that the meeting dated 29.10.2003 was cancelled. Another meeting was organised for 3.12.2003 but the petitioners were not permuted to attend the meeting which was convened in