Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Veer Tejaji Int Udhyog vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control ... on 16 May, 2023
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/015359]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11188/2022
M/s Champa Devi Bricks Udhyog (Old Name New Prajapati Brick
Co.), N.37, P.N.24/2, K.N.8-13, 19 MD, Tehsil Gharsana, Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan Proprietor Smt. Dhapu Devi W/o Shri
Ram Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of House No. 232, Jato
Ka Baas, Bhambloo, Tehsil And District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its
Member Secretary, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jhalana
Dungari, Jaipur.
2. Environment Engineer (Env. Comp.), Rajasthan State
Pollution Control Board, Headquarter, 4 Institutional Area,
Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur.
3. Appellate Authority, (Prevention And Control Of Pollution),
Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11169/2022
Veer Tejaji Int Udhyog, Chak 3 GM, Gharsana, Sri Ganganagar
Through Its Proprietor Nathu Ram S/o Shri Sardar Ram, Age 48
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 16, New Mandi, Gharsana, District
Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its
Member Secretary, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jhalana
Dungari, Jaipur.
2. Environment Engineer (Env. Comp.), Rajasthan State
Pollution Control Board, Headquarter, 4 Institutional Area,
Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur.
3. Appellate Authority, Air (Prevention And Control Of
Pollution), Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11910/2022
M/s Laxmi Int Udhyog, Chak 2 MLD (B), Tehsil Gharsana, District
(Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 09:26:28 PM)
[2023/RJJD/015359] (2 of 8) [CW-11188/2022]
Sri Ganganagar Through Its Proprietor Ruma Kanta W/o Shri Brij
Lal Jakhar, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Shop No. 126
(A), Dhan Mandi, New Mandi, Gharsana, Tehsil Gharsana, District
Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its
Member Secretary, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jhalana
Dungari, Jaipur.
2. Environment Engineer(Env. Comp.), Rajasthan State
Pollution Control Board, Headquarter, 4 Institutional Area,
Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur.
3. Appellate Authority, Air (Prevention And Control Of
Pollution), Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13339/2022
Barar Int Udyog (Old Name Karni Maa Int Udhyog), Chak 2
MLDB, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar Through Its Proprietor
Jaskaran Singh S/o Shri Mastan Singh, Aged About 45 Years,
Chak 2 MLD A Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its
Member Secretary, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jhalana
Dungari, Jaipur.
2. Environment Engineer (Env. Comp.), Rajasthan State
Pollution Control Board, Headquarter, 4 Institutional Area,
Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur.
3. Appellate Authority, Air (Prevention And Control Of
Pollution), Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13543/2022
M/s Mahabali Int Udhyog (Agarwal Int Udhyog), Chak 5 TG (B),
127/383, Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar Through
Its Proprietor Suresh Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Banarshi Das
Agarwal, Aged About 58 Years, 14-B Block, Ward No. 15, Jetsar,
Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
(Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 09:26:28 PM)
[2023/RJJD/015359] (3 of 8) [CW-11188/2022]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its
Member Secretary, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jhalana
Dungari, Jaipur.
2. Environment Engineer (Env. Comp.), Rajasthan State
Pollution Control Board, Headquarter, 4 Institutional Area,
Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur.
3. Appellate Authority, Air (Prevention And Control Of
Pollution), Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. D. S. Thind
Mr. Amit Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 16/05/2023 The present writ petitions are based on identical facts and, thus, they are being disposed of by this common order.
The principal prayer of the petitioners in these writ petitions is for quashing the closure order issued by the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. J. L. Purohit, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners of the brick kilns and the same are in operation for more than 10 years. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the brick kilns were established after taking due permission from the competent authority and obtaining the 'No Objection Certificate' from the Mining Department. He submits that the consent to operate was also in their favour for (Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 09:26:28 PM) [2023/RJJD/015359] (4 of 8) [CW-11188/2022] some time in the past. However, in pursuance of the direction issued by the National Green Tribunal on 11.02.2021 & 10.11.2021, show cause notices were issued and ultimately the closure orders were issued. Learned Senior counsel submits that consent to operate the Brick Kilns was given to some of the similarly situated persons and as a consequence thereof these Brick Kilns are still operational. It is, further submitted that the petitioners are being discriminated vis-a-vis similarly situated persons in whose favour consent to operate Brick Kilns was granted. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal have directed the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board to impose environmental compensation on industries responsible for causing environmental damages. However, individuals similar to the petitioner, whose brick kilns are still operational have not paid any environmental compensation. He, therefore, submits that the closure orders issued against the petitioners may be quashed and set-aside with all consequential benefits.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioners were not given consent to operate brick kilns and, therefore, show cause notices were issued to them and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing, closure orders have been issued. Learned counsel further submits that entire action has been taken in pursuance of the directions issued by the Tribunal on 11.02.2022 and thereafter from time to time. Learned counsel further submits that the writ petitions are not maintainable as an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act (Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 09:26:28 PM) [2023/RJJD/015359] (5 of 8) [CW-11188/2022] and, therefore, the writ petitions may be dismissed on this ground. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya in the case of WP(C).No.338/2021 (Dayanidhi Ventures Pvt. Ltd. V/s Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board & 2 Ors.) decided on 16.12.2021(MANU/MG/0141/2021).
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case.
The facts with regard to the operation of the brick kilns by the petitioners till date are not in dispute. The action has been taken by the respondent-department in pursuance of the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal on 11.02.2021 and subsequently the orders passed by the different fora. The only grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that they are being discriminated, as closure orders have been issued against them, whereas, similarly situated persons have been allowed to operate their brick kilns. In any case, this Court is firmly of the view that since the entire action is being undertaken by the respondent-department in pursuance of the directions issued by the Tribunal, therefore, it will be in the fitness of the things that the petitioners should approach the National Green Tribunal to project their case showing that they are being discriminated vis-a- vis other similarly situated who are operating their brick kilns even today.
Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 provides for remedy of filing an appeal which reads as under:-
"16 Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction. -Any person aggrieved by,-(Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 09:26:28 PM)
[2023/RJJD/015359] (6 of 8) [CW-11188/2022]
(a) an order or decision, made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the appellate authority under section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);
(b) an order passed, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the State Government under section 29 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);
(c) directions issued, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by a Board, under section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);
(d) an order or decision made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the appellate authority under section 13 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (36 of 1977);
(e) an order or decision made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the State Government or other authority under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980);
(f) an order or decision, made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the Appellate Authority under section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981);
(g) any direction issued, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);
(h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be (Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 09:26:28 PM) [2023/RJJD/015359] (7 of 8) [CW-11188/2022] carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);
(i) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, refusing to grant environmental clearance for carrying out any activity or operation or process under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);
(j) any determination of benefit sharing or order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the National Biodiversity Authority or a State Biodiversity Board under the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (18 of 2003), may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not exceeding sixty days."
A bare perusal of Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act clearly goes to show that an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal is available to the petitioners. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain these writ petitions at this stage.
In the circumstances, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty to approach the National Green Tribunal by way of filing an Appeal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act for redressal of their grievances.
In view of the discussions made above, the writ petitions are disposed of with the liberty aforesaid.
(Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 09:26:28 PM)
[2023/RJJD/015359] (8 of 8) [CW-11188/2022] It is made clear, that if the petitioners approach the National Green Tribunal by way of filing appropriate Appeal, the delay caused while prosecuting the writ petitions before this Court shall be taken into consideration by the Tribunal while considering the OA/Appeal for condonation of delay.
The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 6-10-SunilS/-
(Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 09:26:28 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)