Gauhati High Court
Prakash Swami vs The Pollution Control Board And 3 Ors on 25 November, 2020
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010242182019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7560/2019
PRAKASH SWAMI
S/O. SRI SAGARMAL SWAMI, VILL. AND P.O. URIAMGHAT, DIST.
GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785601, AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S DOYANG
STONE CRUSHING INDUSTRIES, HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AND
OFFICE AT VILL. NO.2, RAJAPUKHURI, P.O. SARUPATHAR, DIST.
GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785601.
VERSUS
THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND 3 ORS.
ASSAM, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI.
2:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) CUM MAGISTRATE
4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C BORUAH
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PCB
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
Page No.# 2/4
ORDER
25.11.2020 Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, State Pollution Control Board, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, has appeared for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
The petitioner herein was operating a stone crushing unit situated in Village No.2, Rajapukhuri, P.O. Sarupathar in the district of Golaghat after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities including a "Consent to Operate" issued by the respondent No.2. The said "Consent to Operate" issued by the respondent No.2 was valid initially upto 31.03.2018 but when the petitioner had filed an application for renewal of the same, it was not considered by the respondent No.2 as a result of which, he was compelled to approach this Court by filing WP(C) No.5435/2018 which was disposed of by order dated 15.05.2019 with a direction upon the respondents to take a decision on the application made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. In the order dated 15.05.2019, it was also provided that if the decision to grant "Consent to Operate" in favour of the petitioner is taken then it should be ensured that the petitioner's unit conforms to the permissible level of air and noise quality parameters as prescribed by the rules.
In terms of the order dated 15.05.2019 the respondents had granted "Consent to Operate" vide order dated 20.06.2019 making the same valid till 31.03.2020. However, subsequently it appears that due to complaints received Page No.# 3/4 from some local people, the impugned order dated 29.08.2019 was issued withdrawing the "Consent to Operate" with immediate effect. Hence, this writ petition.
Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the impugned order dated 29.08.2019, the stone crushing unit of the petitioner has come to a standstill thereby causing immense financial loss and injury to the interest of the petitioner.
Responding to the same, Mr. S. Baruah, learned departmental counsel, submits that the officials of the respondent No.2 had carried out inspection in the premises of the petitioner's unit and thereafter found that the levels of air and noise quality were not as per the permissible limits. Situated thus, the request for withdrawal of the order dated 29.08.2019 had to be rejected by the authorities. It is also the submission of Mr. Baruah that since the earlier "Consent to Operate" was valid only upto 31.03.2020 and the said period has already lapsed, it will now be incumbent upon the petitioner to apply for afresh for "Consent to Operate" failing which no such consent can be granted by the Pollution Control Board.
Mr. Baruah has also fairly submitted that his client may have to apply for afresh for "Consent to Operate" since the earlier "Consent to Operate" has already lapsed.
If that be so and as agreed to by learned counsel for both the parties, I dispose of this writ petition by granting 10 days time to the petitioner to make a fresh application for "Consent to Operate" before the respondent No.2. If such an application is made by the petitioner along with a certified copy of this Page No.# 4/4 order, the same be considered and a decision be taken in the matter within a period of 30 days thereafter, if necessary, by carrying out an inspection of the stone crushing unit of the petitioner. For the above purpose, seven days prior notice be served upon the petitioner so as to ensure his presence during inspection. Needless to say, the application for "Consent to Operate" shall be dealt with by the respondent Board as per the provisions of law and be granted only after reaching a satisfaction that all parameters as regards air and noise quality is met by the petitioner's unit.
With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant