Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4 Learned Counsel appearing forthe Karnataka No Comments Pollution Control had filed their para-wise reply with respect to the objections submitted by the applicant. 5 Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant District Collector had not submitted though the Committee was constituted with participated in the inspection, District Collector but he had not participated in the instead the Assistant inspection, instead the Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner, Dakshina Dakshina Kannada District attended the Kannada District attended in sp ec ti on . the inspection on 17.10.2020 due to COVID-19 infection.

the Pollution Control Board has properly considered the objections and given para-wise reply. Further. all criteria have been considered and only thereafter the Committee had prepared the report Further, the reason for deputing some other officer No Comments by the District Collector was mentioned in the report itself and as such there is no illegality in deputing somebody in his place to facilitate the inspection being done in his absence to avoid delay.
Learned Counsel         also    submitted that two of
the applicants were present at         the     time of
inspection      conducted       by     the        Joint
We are not going into the merits of the report The reply to the or the submission made. The objections were filed by Committee had submitted the report and the the KSPCB being the applicant had also filed objections to the Member Convener after same. When detailed objections has been filed consultation with all by the applicant, then the Committee had to the other Committee consider those objections and give their members. However, the explanation regarding the same as to how the same is again reported in objections raised by the applicant is not Section 4.0 of this sustainable. But in this case, only the Pollution report. Joint inspection Control Board has given the para-wise reply was again conducted on for the same. Further, it is seen from the 22.07.2021 when the report that at the time when inspection was crusher unit was in conducted, the crusher unit was not in operation.

7. Though the applicant submitted that there are deficiencies in the report in the matter of point from which measurement for prescribed distance is to be taken, the point from which distance for blasting is to be taken and distance from forest, adverse impact of dust on the paddy crop and the Project Proponents being close to the lake, we are unable to accept these submissions in view of report of the committee which has undertaken visit to the site and examined the matter objectively and independently. However, we find from the para-wise reply submitted by the State PCB that a document has been filed which purports to be the 'joint inspection report details for safer zone declaration for 2.0 Acres at Sy. No. 3/2,8,11,17,18 of Belthangadi Taluk belonging to Sri Santosh Kumar Shetty' that distance of Nagarkatte lake, where rain water settles, is mentioned to be 165 meters as against required distance of 200 meters. This aspect needs to be verified and if it is found that the project activity is within prohibited distance, the same may be suitably relocated within one month which may be ensured by the State PCB.