Uttarakhand High Court
Devendra Singh Adhikari vs State Of on 12 December, 2023
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
CLCON No.328 of 2023 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Himanshu Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. V.S. Rawat, Brief Holder for the State.
The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the order dated 02.01.2023, passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.168 of 2019, Devendra Singh Adhikari vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ("the judgment") has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to paras 98 and 99 of the judgment. In para 98, he would sight last 07 lines of the para 98, which reads as follows:-
"...............We further direct that even in cases where inspections may have been undertaken in the past, without the participation of the State Pollution Control Board, reinspection should be carried out with their participation within the next three months, and consequential action be taken on the basis of such inspection reports.
99) Accordingly, we allow the petition and direct Respondent Nos.
5 and 6 to stop the operation of the stone crusher forthwith. Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 shall apply to the NBWL to obtain its clearance for running its stoner crusher plant. The NBWL shall examine the case threadbare, and shall also examine, amongst others, the aspects taken note of in paragraph 97 hereinabove, and by a speaking order shall either grant, or refuse, its approval for the running of the stone crusher plant of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6. The NBWL shall take its decision, and communicate the same within three months from the date of this judgment. In the event of the NBWL granting approval to the stone crusher plant of the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6, it may resume operation. On the other hand, if the NBWL refuses to grant its approval, the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 shall proceed to dismantle its stone crusher plant, and remove all its equipments and machinery from the site within two months of the order being passed by the NBWL."
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it was incumbent on the respondent-State to re-inspect the matters, in which, inspections have already been carried out. He would submit that the State has not undertaken this exercise.
Referring to para 99 of the judgment, he would also sight that the respondent nos.5 and 6 were also directed to apply to the National Board of Wildlife ("NBWL") to obtain its clearance for running its Stone Crusher Plant. He would submit that it has not been applied by the respondent nos.5 and 6, which they were under obligation to apply and if they so applied, the State was to examine the case afresh as per the finding recorded in para 97 of the judgment.
Let learned State counsel get instructions in the matter.
A copy of the petition may be provided to the learned State counsel.
List on 15.12.2023, just after fresh cases.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.12.2023 Sanjay