Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
M/S Bloore Brick Kiln vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 20 July, 2024
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Serial No. 73
Regular list
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 1555/2024
M/S Bloore Brick Kiln
..... Appellant/petitioner(s)
Through: -
Ms. Sabeena Naveed, Advocate
V/s
UT of J&K and Ors.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr. Syed Musaib, Dy. AG CORAM:
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE (ORDER) 20.07.2024 The case set up by the petitioner, in the instant petition, is that he is running a Brick Kiln Unit at Parisabad Pora, Sholipora, District Budgam, under the name and style of M/S Bloore Brick Kiln, after having established the same almost 18 years before. The petitioner is stated to have applied to the respondents for a consent certificate which is being issued by the respondents on yearly basis. The respondents rejected the application of the petitioner for issuance of consent certificate by mistakenly treating the application of the petitioner for establishment of new Brick Kiln Unit. Subsequently, the respondents issued an order bearing No. 146 JKPCC of 2023 dated 23.11.2023 (impugned herein), by virtue of which the Brick Kiln Unit of the petitioner was directed to be closed immediately.
Aggrieved of the impugned order supra the petitioner challenges the same inter alia on the grounds that the respondents have wrongly considered Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document the application of the petitioner for establishment of a new Brick Kiln Unit, while as the same was in operation for almost 18 years having been registered as such in the year 2014; the Unit of the petitioner neither comes within the purview of the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal, Delhi in case titled Syed Reyaz Vs. UT of J&K, nor within the radius of 8 Kms from International Airport, Srinagar.
On asking of the Court, notice has been waived by Mr. Syed Musaib, learned Dy. AG, on behalf of respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, the material made available and considered the submissions made.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset was that the matter being similar to the one raised in LPA No. 39/2024, wherein the Division Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 26.02.2024, had shown indulgence, deserves to be given the same treatment. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not inconsistence, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that every Brick Kiln Unit is supposed to operate within the framework of law applicable and any deviation thereof will call for a legal action. He submits that the petitioner's Unit has failed to comply with the prescribed norms, therefore, has been proceeded against and the impugned order in that view of the matter being in consonance with law does not call for any interference from the Court.
The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same has been issued by the respondent No. 3, after taking note of the fact that the petitioner's Unit is operating in violation of Section 25/26 and Section 21 of the Water Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1991, and the petitioner having failed to respond to the notices sent in this behalf, entails action.
It does not transpire as to how the averments in respect of the Unit being in operation 8 Kms away from the Srinagar International Airport and the directions of the NGT, New Delhi concern the petitioner. The impugned order is axiomatic, it is passed for non-compliance of the provisions of Pollution Control Acts that too in the year 2023. It would be profitable to reproduce the impugned order herein:-
" Order No:146 JKPCC of 2023
Dated 23/11/2023
Whereas, no activity having bearing on environment can be taken in hand without prior consent of Pollution Control Committee, warranted under Section 25/26 and Section 21 of the water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 respectively.
Whereas, Brick Kiln is categorized as Orange Category activity on the basis of pollution potential, for the purpose of seeking the consent from the JKPCC Whereas, M/s Bloore Brick Kiln at Parisabad-Budgam has been set up and put it is operation in violation of above stated laws that too bereft of adequate pollution control devices/measures.
Whereas, the unit holder was accordingly served with repeated notices, particularly notice dated 31.05. 2023, calling upon him there under to show reasons as to why legal action including closure of his unit be not taken.
Whereas, the unit holder has failed to show any response to the notices, besides failing to take measures to meet the requirements of laws governing environmental protection and the Regional Director, PCC Kashmir has recommended closure of the unit vide his No. PCC/ROK/LS/23/87-88 dt 09.09.2023.
Whereas, the unit in question cannot be allowed to run un-authorizedly with above status and to the determent of human health and environment.
Now therefore in exercise of powers vested in the J&K Pollution Control Committee under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, read with Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, immediate closure of M/S Bloore Brick Kiln at Parisabad- Budgam is hereby ordered and in this behalf the:-
(i) Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Budgam is directed to get the M/S Bloore Brick Kiln at Parisabad-Budgam, closed immediately.
(ii) Director Industries & Commerce, Kashmir for deregistering the unit.
(iii) Prop. M/S Bloore Brick Kiln at Parisabad-Budgam is directed to cease the operation of the unit forthwith.
As approved by the competent authority.
Sd/-
(K Ramesh Kumar)IFS JK PCC Jammu"
Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Since the petitioner's Unit has been established in the year 2014, is stated to be complying with the requisite norms and has been closed without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, therefore, the application of the petitioner deserves to be considered afresh for issuance of consent certificate.
The instant petition, in the above background, is disposed of at its threshold with the direction to respondent No. 3, to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of consent certificate and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of four weeks and convey the same to the petitioner.
Disposed of.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 20.07.2024 "Mohammad Yasin Dar"
Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document