Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Bhima vs State on 11 October, 2010

Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya

Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/4967/2006	 1/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4967 of 2006
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10359 of 2010
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 10543 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4967 of
2006 
 
=================================================


 

BHIMA
KESAV BAPODRA - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT THR' SECRETARY & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
BHARAT T RAO for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MS KRINA P CALLA, AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR TUSHAR METHA, SR. ADVOCATE with MS AMEE
YAJNIK for Respondent(s) : 2, 
None for Respondent(s) : 3 - 4. 
MR
KS NANAVATI, Sr. ADVOCATE for NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) :
5, 
=================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 11/10/2010  
COMMON ORAL ORDER 

(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA) The writ petition in Special Civil Application No. 4967 of 2006 was preferred in public interest by a resident of Dharampur, District Porbandar alleging air pollution caused by the 5th respondent M/s Orient Abrasives Co. Ltd. affecting the farmers of the surrounding area.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 16.12.2009, the Gujarat Pollution Control Board inspected the premises of the 5th respondent on 6.1.2010 and noticed that the air pollution level was beyond the prescribed limit. For the said reason, the Pollution Control Board by its order dated 13.1.2010 ordered for closure of the unit of the 5th respondent. However, it appears that thereafter without any intimation to the Court, the Pollution Control Board revisited the premises of the 5th respondent, submitted a report and revoked the order of closure without intimation to the Court. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Court, the Court asked the reason for revoking the order of closure without intimation to the Court and in reply, the Pollution Control Board while sought for unconditional apology, has ordered for closure of the unit of the 5th respondent.

3. Being aggrieved, the 5th respondent preferred the connected writ petition in Special Civil Application No. 10359 of 2010 challenging the order of closure dated 17.8.2010.

4. The Pollution Control Board was asked to revisit the unit of the 5th respondent and submit a report. Pursuant to the Court's order, the Pollution Control Board revisited the unit of the 5th respondent on 18.9.2010 and submitted the report alongwith the affidavit in reply filed in SCA No. 10359 of 2010.

5. As the impugned order passed in the second case arises out of some observations made by the Court in the first case, they were heard together for disposal by a common order.

6. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that the samples of inspection were sent for analysis by the Pollution Control Board, which was completed by 21.9.2010 and the reports show that the unit of the 5th respondent is meeting with the norms of the Board and the unit is not causing pollution or discharging any effluent in violation of the Air (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981.

7. In the facts and circumstances, while we uphold that the earlier order of closure passed by the Pollution Control Board having found that the 5th respondent unit was discharging effluent beyond the pollution level as noticed in the report of January, 2010 but in view of the subsequent reports pursuant to the visit on 21.9.2010, we allow the Pollution Control Board to reconsider the question of opening the unit of the 5th respondent in view of the reports aforesaid and allow it to recall the order of closure. In the meantime, the 5th respondent Orient Abrasives Co. Ltd. may run its unit in terms of the interim order till final order is passed by the Pollution Control Board.

8. Both the writ petitions and the Civil Application stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

[S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.] [ANANT S. DAVE, J.] sundar/-

    Top