Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8082/2010 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8082 of 2010
=========================================
ARJUN
ODEDRA CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING
DIRECTOR OF
BIOCARE
REMEDIES PVT. LTD. - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THROUGH CHAIRMAN/MEMBER & 1 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MRS KALPANA K RAVAL for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 07/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
This
is a second writ petition filed by an industrialist in the grab and
under the caption Public Interest Litigation , who also argued
in person. He alleged that air pollution has been causing by the
unit of 2nd respondent. Earlier the petitioner moved this
Court by filing SCA No. 394 of 2010, which was disposed of on 20th
January, 2010, for the reasons mentioned therein, and the Court
passed an order allowing the petitioner to approach first respondent
Gujarat Pollution Control Board. The said order is quoted
below:-
1. Writ
petition has been preferred by the petitioner alleging inaction on
the part of respondent No.1 to take action for closing the unit run
by respondent No.2.
2. Learned
counsel for the petitioner while referred to the Development Plan,
Gandhinagar, 2011 AD, submitted that, under clause 2.3.20, obnoxious
and hazardous industries could not have been granted permission to
run such industry at Gandhinagar. It is alleged that the second
respondent- industry is dealing with hazardous substance and emitting
toxic and obnoxious gases and in spite of repeated requests no action
has been taken by respondent No.1.
3. We have
heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
perused the record.
4. From the
record, it is evident that the second respondent-industry was granted
consents and authorization to run the unit as back as on 27.11.2006
by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board. After three years, the
petitioner has indirectly challenged the same. That apart, we also
found that the petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director of
another industry and is neighbour. Except allegation, no specific
case has been made out against the respondent. Under these
circumstances, while we are not inclined to interfere with the order
of consent granted by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, liberty is
given to the petitioner to approach the first respondent, who may
make necessary inspection and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law after notice to respondent No.2.
5. This
petition stands disposed of, but there shall be no order as to
costs.
2. The
same relief has been sought for in this second writ petition, for
direction to Gujarat Pollution Control Board to take appropriate
action against second respondent polluting unit in order to close
down the said unit. This time, instead of representing through
lawyer, petitioner has appeared in person and alleged about pollution
caused by 2nd respondent. By filing an affidavit,
respondent Pollution Control Board has brought to the notice of the
Court that pursuant to the observation made by this Court on 20.1.10,
petitioner represented before Pollution Control Board and the Board
in its turn got the premises of second respondent inspected on
23.4.2010 and in the said report, the team observed that at the time
of visit production of Zink oxide was going on and the ambient air
quality was found to be normal. The report has been enclosed as
Annexure B to the reply affidavit.
3. We
noticed that to be on the safer side, Gujarat Pollution Control
Board, under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981, ordered Environmental Engineering Department,
L.D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad to inspect the unit run by
second respondent, and accordingly the said Environmental Engineering
Department of L.D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad submitted a
report under the caption Identification and Assessment of Air
Pollution Sources from M/s. Uttam Industry – 2nd
respondent. The report is satisfactory and there is no adverse
remark. At paragraph 5.3, the following observation has been made
with regard to petitioner complainant.
5.3 Ambient
Air Quality Monitoring: It was
intended to carry out the ambient air quality monitoring twice at the
premises of the complainant M/s. Biocare Remedies. However, there
was complete non-cooperation on the part of complainant in this
regards. During the first monitoring the complainant switched off
the machine after 4 hours and during the second monitoring, the
permission to keep the machine was not given. So second monitoring
could not be done. The results of first ambient air quality
monitoring are given at Table No.7
From
both the said reports, it would be evident that there is no emission
of toxic and obnoxious gases and the ambient air quality is normal
and there is no air pollution.
4. It
is also not in dispute that the petitioner has also filed a Suit
against second respondent industry. Petitioner, in spite of the
Court’s order, failed to justify that second respondent industry is
running without proper permission.
5. In
view of the fact that no public interest is involved, and it is an
adversary litigation appears to have been filed to malign second
respondent, for which earlier case was not entertained, for same
relief second writ petition has been filed. After a Suit has also
been filed against second respondent, it will be evident that
petitioner is now trying to take undue advantage under Article 226 of
the Constitution. For the reason aforesaid, while we dismiss the
writ petition, impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner for
payment in favour of Indian Law Institute, Gujarat State, Gujarat
High Court Campus. The amount to be paid within a month, failing
which the competent authority will take up the matter with the
Collector for recovery of the amount by way of arrears of land
revenue.
(S.J.
Mukhopadhaya, C.J.)
(Anant
S. Dave, J.)
*/Mohandas
Top