Raihan Uddin Laskar And 3 Ors vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 11 March, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Raihan Uddin Laskar And 3 Ors vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 11 March, 2020

R 1-3) Link Case: WP(C) 7799/2019 1:M/S. DEY STONE CRUSHING UNIT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI RANJIT KUMAR DEY, AGED ABOUT, SON OF LATE MANINDRA KUMAR DEY, RESIDENT OF SALCHAPRA PART-I, P.O.- SALCHAPRA, P.S. SILCHAR, DISTRICT CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788814.

VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

2:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER CACHAR SILCHAR DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001.

3:THE MEMBER SECRETARY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI- 781021.

4:THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-IN-CHARGE REGIONAL LAB-CUM-OFFICE REGIONAL POLLUTION Page No.# 4/7 CONTROL BOARD ASSAM CACHAR SILCHAR PIN- 7888001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N BORUAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA 11.03.2020 Heard Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 6484/2018 and Mr. D K Kotoky, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 7799/2019. Also heard Ms. D D Barman, learned Additional Senior Government representing Forest department and the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar at Silchar. Mr. S Baruah, learned standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board is also present.

The earlier writ petition was filed by the residents residing within the vicinity of the stone crusher unit run by the petitioner in WP(C) 7799/2019. The petitioners in WP (C) 6484/2018 lodged a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar at Silchar on 22.03.2018 in order to close the stone crusher unit on the following grounds.

i. The unit is situated within 100 meters of village area and the locality is thickly populated.

ii. The residents within the vicinity of the unit could not sleep nor the students could read due to operation of the unit at night time.

iii. The dust arising out of the said unit was causing ill effect to the health of the residents nearby.

iv. Further resulting pollution of the air quality.

Page No.# 5/7 v. The noise level of the unit is also high causing noise pollution.

In WP(C) 6484/2018, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Pollution Control Board, the respondent No. 4. In the said affidavit, it was specifically stated that M/s Envirocon (an authorized laboratory of the Pollution Control Board, Assam) vide its reports dated 20.11.2017 and 29.03.2018 reported that the ambient air quality around the stone crusher unit is under permissible limit including that of the noise level. The specific stand of the Pollution Control Board is reproduced hereinbelow:

"4. ...........................Because as per Ambient Air quality report of M/s Envirocon (an authorized Laboratory of the Pollution Control Board, Assam) vide ENV/DSCU/CHR/AAQ/17-18-01 dated 20.11.2017 the ambient air quality is under permissible limit. Likewise as per report No. ENV/DSCU/CHR/AAQ/17-18/02 dated 29.03.2018 of M/s Envirocon, the ambient air quality around the stone crusher unit is under permissible limit.

As per Noise level monitoring report of M/s Envirocon dated 20.11.2017, noise level at 10 metres distance from the stone crusher unit was found as 77 Leq (dB-A) against permissible limit of 75 Lea (dB-A) and at all other locations at 15 metres distance the noise levels were found within permissible limits. Again as per Noise level monitoring report of M/s Envirocon dated 30.03.2018 noise level at 10 metres, 15 metres toward North and 15 metres toward South were found as 78 Leq (dB-A), 76 Leq (dB-A) and 77 Leq (dB-A) respectively, which were marginally higher than the permissible limit of 75 Leq (dB-A). Further, at other three locations respectively at 15 metres towards East, 15 metres towards West and 150 metres towards North were found within permissible limits.

5. That with respect to the contents of the paragraph No. 4, this deponent humbly states that the unit has not been allowed to operate at night time i.e, beyond 6.00 p.m. Further, as per noise level monitoring reports dated 20.11.2017 & 30.03.2018, noise level at 15 metres distance from the unit is only 46 and school/ residences are available beyond 150 metres distance from the unit. Hence there is no chance of disturbances at the residential area from the noise of the unit.

Page No.# 6/7

6. That with respect to the contents of the paragraph No. 5, this deponent humbly states that there is no any Rules providing that stone crusher unit should be established at least 300 metres away from the residential area.

7. That with respect to the contents of the paragraph No. 6, this deponent humbly states that it is not true that during late night many trucks enter in the establishment for unloading the boulders creating pollution and nuisance.

On the other hand, the Salchapra Broad Gause (BG) Railway Yard is at a distance of 500 metres to 600 metres from the unit and the movement of vehicles in the area during night time are due to this BG Railway Yard activities."

The petitioner in WP(C) 7799/2019, who is the operator of the unit filed the writ petition as the renewal of the license for operating the unit which expired on 31.03.2019 was not extended by the competent authority due to pendency of other writ petition i.e. WP(C) 6484/2018. It is further submitted as per practice before expiry of the said license, the petitioner applied for renewal of the same and as there was a complaint lodged by the residents residing nearby the unit and due to the pendency of the writ petition, the competent authority did not renew the license.

This court accepted the stand taken by the Pollution Control Board including the reports annexed in its affidavit filed in WP(C) 6484/2018. Mr. Ahmed disputed the finding of the report relied by the Pollution Control Board, which was issued by one of the Agents under the Pollution Control Board. Accordingly, the petitioners in WP(C) 6484/2019 were allowed to bring on record other reports contradicting the findings relied by the Pollution Control Board. Accordingly, on 03.02.2020, Dr. Ahmed was allowed to inform this court the time required for submitting the said test report. Further, on the subsequent date thereafter i.e. on 28.02.2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for one week time to file necessary opinion, which was accordingly allowed. Today, upon listing of these maters Dr. Ahmed sought for a direction to a specific expert to examine and submit the report to this court. In my considered opinion, the Pollution Control Board is a statutory board authorized to perform necessary tests and to scrutinize the results as to various noise level or pollution level recorded based on the test as per standard norms. If any challenge/ challenges of any of the findings of the Page No.# 7/7 Pollution Control Board accepted to be as per standard norms are made evidence has to be led, which is not the area to enter by this writ court, moreso, when there is a report by a statutory authority disproving the contention of the petitioners in WP(C) 6484/2018. Considering the same, as the Pollution Control Board in its finding made its stand clear in respect of the result of the tests carried out on the basis of the same, I close both these writ petitions with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar at Silchar to call for a fresh report in respect of the noise level and the air pollution level from the Pollution Control Board and thereafter keeping in view the prescribed Rules consider the renewal of the license to the writ petitioner in WP(C) 7799/2019. Needless to say, the subsequent report called for by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar at Silchar can be objected if any of the parties to the writ petitions are aggrieved. Further, the aggrieved party is at liberty to take up the dispute in the competent forum, if so advised.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gauhati High Court