Gujarat High Court
Chhaganbhai Kalabhai Bharwad vs State Of Gujarat & 6....Opponent(S) on 23 March, 2016
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Z.K.Saiyed
C/WPPIL/107/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 107 of 2014
================================================================
CHHAGANBHAI KALABHAI BHARWAD....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 6....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.SUBHASH G BAROT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1 , 3 - 4
MR NIRAL R MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 6
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MR SATYAM Y
CHHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 2
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 7
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 , 5
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 23/03/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The petitioner has taken up cause of unauthorized construction by respondent No.6-Industry and has further alleged that the said respondent is running a processing house at the site situated at Saijpr-Gopalpur. Heavy pollution is being caused by drainage and pollutant in the nearby lakes. Primarily, these are the allegations contained in the petition.
Page 1 of 3
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Thu Mar 24 02:58:28 IST 2016
C/WPPIL/107/2014 ORDER
2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, we gather that out of main 71000 sq. mtr. of constructed area of the said industry, the competent authority has regularized all, except 1100 sq. mtr. of construction. Learned Counsel Shri Dave for respondent No.6 stated that for such regularization, the said respondent has also paid impact fee of Rs.1,43,80,000/-. To the extent the order of the competent authority refusing to regularize the construction, the said respondent has also preferred appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has rejected the appeal. Copy of which order was received by respondent No.6 on or around 10.03.2016.
2. With respect to the pollution, we notice that the Pollution Control Board has produced a visit report dated 07.07.2014 in which it is stated that no effluents are discharged in the lakes as alleged. We are informed that the said industry has its own effluent treatment plant which is fully functional. The AMC has also initiated steps for removal of the construction which is not regularized by issuance of notice. We are also informed that there are about 3000 workers employed in the industry.
3. In view of such facts, the PIL is disposed of with following directions:-
Page 2 of 3
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu Mar 24 02:58:28 IST 2016 C/WPPIL/107/2014 ORDER I. GPCB shall inspect the effluent treatment plant of respondent No.6 within 15 days from today and ensure that the same is properly functioning and that there is no pollutants discharged by the respondent No.6 without treatment.
II. AMC shall take steps for removal of unauthorized construction, if no further protection is available to the petitioner from higher forum. For such purpose, respondent No.6 shall notify to the Municipal Corporation latest by 05.04.2016 if any interim order is granted, failing which the Municipal Corporation shall proceed further pursuant to its notice.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) SHITOLE Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu Mar 24 02:58:28 IST 2016