The central legal point established in the judgment is the enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, particularly the Environment (Protection Act) 1986, to prevent the installation of industrial facilities such as stone crushers that pose health hazards and environmental nuisances.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.3.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri and order dated 19.7.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Yamunanagar whereby the learned courts below have allowed the application for ad-interim injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondents.

2. The plaintiff-respondents had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the present petitioner from installing any machinery for running and working any stone crusher for creating any public nuisance in the land measuring 46 kanals 9 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 35, Khatauni No. 62 bearing Khasra Nos. 14//12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19 total Kittey 6 or in any part thereof, situated in the revenue estate of village Koliwala, Hatbast No. 60, Tehsil Chhachhrauli District Yamunanagar as per Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 either themselves or through their employees, agents, representatives forcibly and illegally or in any manner, whatsoever.

3. It was claimed by the plaintiff-respondents that they were permanent residents of Village Koliwala District Yamunanagar and that there was no stone crusher zone carved out by the State Government constituting the land in question. The petitioner i.e. M/s Mohit Stone Crusher purchased a piece of land comprised in Rect No. 14, Khasra Nos. 12 and 19 on 21.2.2005 with an intention to install a stone crusher. It was claimed that the said activity would ultimately become cause for environmental hazard which shall tell upon the health of the inhabitants of village Koliwala. It was claimed that in case the petitioners were allowed to install a stone crusher at a distance of 150 yards from the abadi of the village then it would cause havoc to the nearby school run by the Red Cross Society, and would affect the crops standing nearby the fields thereby causing danger to the health of the inhabitants of village Koliwala, their livestock and the standing crops.

4. The defendants in the reply filed to the suit claimed that the stone crusher was being installed in the stone crusher zone demarcated by the State Government and Pollution Control Board. It was claimed that no objection certificate was issued by the competent authority after obtaining report of the Tehsildar of the area. It was claimed that the petitioners have already spent an huge amount of Rs. 70 lacs on installation of crusher. It was also claimed that there was approximately one dozen stone crushers operating in that very zone. The stand of the petitioner further was that the stone crusher was installed at a safe distance from the abadi of village. The defendant- petitioners also took a stand that inhabited area of village Koliwala was in fact washed away in floods in river Yamuna and some inhabitants of village Koliwala have constructed houses in their own fields which does not make a compact abadi. The scattered houses therefore, could not be considered as village. It was also claimed that the houses were not constructed within the Lal Dora of village. It was further claimed that there is no environmental hazard.

5. The learned courts below by placing reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1992 SCC 256 as also notification dated 18.12.1992 issued by the Government of Haryana came to the conclusion that installing of stone crusher was actionable nuisance and was otherwise in violation of the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court as well as the judgment passed by this Court and accordingly restrained the petitioners from installing and running stone crusher. Learned courts below also took note of the report conducted by the doctors of P.G.I., Chandigarh as filed in case Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana and others, (1995-3) The Punjab Law Reporter 613 wherein it has been held as under :-

"The air we breathe, is a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen with minor constituents lik