Uttarakhand High Court
Keval Kishore Sharma & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 13 March, 2014
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 141 of 2013
With
Interim Relief Application No. 11443 of 2013
Keval Kishore Sharma & another. ........... Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others. ............ Respondents
Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1, 2,
4, 5, 6 & 7.
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for respondent Nos. 8 to 12.
Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
There is a policy of the State Government pertaining to establishment of stone crushing units. The policy aims at providing benefits to the people of the locality, where the stone crusher is proposed to be established. The policy says that there are six parameters to give the permission. The policy further says that one of these parameters can be waived. That is provided in Clause 4(Ka) of the policy. Although the policy is silent, but, having regard to the fact that the policy was not to benefit the stone crushers but to benefit the people residing in the surrounding area where the stone crusher is proposed to be set-up, it implies that, before waiving any of the terms, the person likely to be affected at least should be given an opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, that was not done. Only the stone crusher was heard and one of the parameters was relaxed. It appears from the inspection report that, at the time when the inspection was carried out, only the proposed stone crusher was noticed about the inspection and no one else. The inspectors opined that one of the parameters of the policy can be relaxed, despite noting that, by reason of such relaxation, at least one person and his family will be deprived of the benefit of that policy. However, even he was not noticed. It further appears that the Government, on the basis of the said inspection report, blindly granted relaxation. The Government, in its 2 wisdom, makes policies for the benefit of the people and the officers working in the Government, by acting in a manner contrary to the spirit of the policy, ensure that such benefit is denied to the people for whom the policy has been framed and the same is violated by people as that of the stone crusher in the instant case.
2. We, accordingly, pass an interim order staying the inspection report and all action taken on the basis thereof. We also stay the provision of Clause 4(Ka) of the policy. We, however, make it clear that advantage of the provision contained in Clause 4(Ka) of the policy may be had; provided, in course of inspection or at the time of taking a decision pertaining to relaxation, the people likely to be affected are given notice and heard. We also direct that, in the instant case, insofar as the proposed stone crushing unit of respondent Nos. 8 to 12 is concerned, once again, inspection be made by a duly constituted committee and that committee will make yet another inspection and give notice of the inspection not only to respondent Nos. 8 to 12, but also to the people of the locality; hear them; and, thereafter, make recommendation. The authority of the State will independently apply its mind on the recommendation and, thereafter, proceed further in terms of the policy and, in particular, Clause 4(Ka) thereof. In the committee, to be constituted, people, who were parties to the inspection carried out on 16th May, 2012, shall not be included. Inasmuch as respondent Nos. 8 to 12 are on the verge of setting-up the stone crusher, we request that insofar as inspection pertaining to the stone crushing unit of the said respondents is concerned, the same be completed as quickly as possible, but not later than four weeks from today.
3. List the matter eight weeks' hence, by which time, it is hoped and expected that steps, as above, will be taken and completed. The Interim Relief Application stands disposed of.
(V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.)
13.03.2014 13.03.2014
G