ORDER

1. The matter has been taken up in continuation of order of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2021 in the light of order of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court dated 18.11.2021 in Civil Appeal No.218 of 2021, Tejinder Kumar Jolly & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors, setting aside order of the Tribunal dated 27.8.2019 and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication of the issue.

2. The question is whether the stone crushers in question can be allowed to continue within prohibited distance of siting norms merely on the ground that the siting norms are subsequent to setting up of the stone crushers.

3. Vide order dated 16.12.2021, the Tribunal observed:

(cid:147)(cid:133)(cid:133)

5. Accordingly, we proceed on the basis that the policy applicable currently is to apply to pre existing units also. Present matter is covered by inter partes order. We find merit in the contention that the (cid:145)Precautionary(cid:146) and (cid:145)Sustainable Development(cid:146) principles have been held part of the domestic law of the country and referable to Article 21 of the Constitution in (1996) 5 SCC 547, Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors. and there can be no exemption at the discretion of any authority in favour of any unit merely on the ground that it was established earlier. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that in view of the order of Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal is required to deal with the contention of the applicant that the stone crusher cannot be allowed within 300 mtrs from the Abadi, Schools, educational institutions and hospitals, etc. Our attention has been drawn to the Uttarakhand Stone Crusher Policy, 2020 with regard to siting of stone crushers as follows:-

(cid:147)

Sl. No. Place Minimum Distance of Stone Crusher

1. Government Forest 100 meter

6. It is submitted that if the stone crushers operate close to a school, the students will be adversely affected by air and noise pollution.

7. However, learned counsel for the project proponents has opposed the above submissions. He submitted that even if the latest siting policy is to apply, the policy itself makes an exception and debars challenge by establishments or individuals who come after the units are lawfully set up, with full knowledge of functioning of such units. Only question will be compliance with environmental norms and not siting norms in such cases. He submits that this aspect has not been gone into nor this part of the policy questioned. In this regard, learned Counsel relies upon note No.3 in 2020 Policy as follows:-

(cid:147)(3) Construction of any Religious Place (Temple, Mosque, Gurudwara, Church, etc.) or School, Education institution, Hospital, Nursing Home, etc. or residential house of one family house of more than one families after the application of the establishment of Stone Crusher/Screening Plan, then any objection raised by them will not be taken into consideration and it will not be considered to be any hindrance in the Renewal/permission.(cid:148)

8. It is submitted that the establishment of stone crushers started in the year 1982. No establishment or house existed within the prohibited distance at that time. The applicant purchased the house for the first time in 2004, with full knowledge of the stone crushers in question.

9. Faced with the above, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the policy of granting exemption to pre-existing stone crushers is uncalled for and even those who come after setting up of crushers can object to their continuance or renewal of consent in view of hazardous nature of their activity. Setting