Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(35) The reasoning given in the order dated 04.02.2010 passed under Section 21 of the Act is also legally acceptable. In the impugned order, the Board has observed as under :

12(ii). According to the guidelines of the State Board, issued in the year 1998, the stone crushing units have been termed as comparatively less air polluting. Nonetheless, such units have high pollution potential if they are operated without installing adequate pollution control measures. The industry was required to properly operate and maintain the pollution control measures. Consent granted by the State Board under Section 21 of the Act is not for ever (sic). It is granted for a specified period. The State Board could refuse consent to an industry where it is found that it has made default in making compliance of the provisions of the Air Act or where it is found that the pollution control measure are not adequate/as per rules/prescribed norms or where such measure are not properly maintained and operated. The State Board takes action against a defaulting industry where it fails to cure or rectify the deficiencies in the pollution control system, pointed out in the notice or continues to violate the provisions of the Air Act. The purpose of show cause notice is to secure compliance of the provisions of the Air Act. In the present case there is clear observation that the stone crusher was found wanting in the pollution control measures, as prescribed under the law, when inspection was conducted on 11.02.2009 to 13.02.2009. The reply dated 09.01.2009 submitted by the crusher pursuant to the show cause notice dated 02.01.2009 of the State Board, inter-alia, saying that it had taken requisite pollution control measures, is not convincing and the same has been found to be unsatisfactory for the reason that the crusher had not taken following pollution control measures as observed during inspection carried out on the aforesaid occasions :-