Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.26 seconds)Section 31 in The Air Force Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Air Force Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A.P. Pollution Control Board vs Prof.M.V.Nayudu (Retd.) & Others on 27 January, 1999
6. State Board filed reply to the writ petition. A preliminary objection was raised that the petitioner cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for the reason that he has another alternative efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned order passed by the State Board before the Appellate authority constituted under the provisions of Section 31 of the Act of 1981. The second objection was that nothing has been placed on record to show that the petitioner unit was operating in accordance with the conditions contained in the consent. The report of the inspection shows that the petitioner violated the terms of the consent. The report is by an expert, who is a public servant and such is directly admissible and relevant in view of section 45 of the Evidence Act. The Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board vs. M.V. Nayadu and others (1999 SCC part 2 page 718) has categorically held that in cases of pollution doctrine of reversal of proof would apply. The heavy onus is on the polluter to prove that he is not causing pollution and is meeting all the requires of law. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this matter. The entire nearby area where the unit of the petitioner is situated has been declared as reserved/ protected forest and there is no legal source of raw material except that for the illegal mining. Division Bench of this Court in DBCW No. 5525/2004 has given directions to the Director General of Police to create a police chowki there. These directions have been issued based on a report which shows that due to 40 crushers there is an apprehension of illegal mining. The present case is from the same area. Reiterating the facts stated by the petitioner in the writ petition, the respondents averred that the order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the Chairman is a speaking order after considering the submissions made by the petitioner. The Chairman considered all the relevant facts and arguments submitted by the petitioner and the inspection report carried out during 11.2.2009 to 13.2.2009. The respondent in their reply stated that the suspended particulate matter (SPM) is only one factor but is not the sole factor. A reading of the facts shall reveal that consent was granted on certain terms and conditions and any breach thereof is sufficient to take action against the unit. During inspection it was found that vibrator screen was not covered completely, water spraying system at the crusher and transfer points was inadequate, plantation has not been done all along the periphery of the unit to develop green belt, the system for cleaning and wetting of the ground and roads within the premises was inadequate, records regarding monthly production and raw material procured was not available at the unit and acoustic enclosrue not provided with the DG set of 320 KVA. The record regarding details of procurement of raw material and production is important in order to verify and ensure that the raw material is derived from the source of legal mining. Operation of stone crusher based on unauthorised sources perpetrates illegal mining and results into degradation of environment. Earlier action was taken against the petitioner against which writ came to be filed and the matter was remaneded. These very grounds were there in that order against which the petitioner submitted detailed reply and made oral submissions also. All the points raised on his behalf have been discussed and decided as such the petitioner cannot have any complaint with regard to principles of natural justice and opportunity of hearing. The Appellate Authority is in existence and the petitioner could have filed the appeal before it instead of preferring writ petition before this Court, thus the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. Mr. Naqvi, Additional Advocate General reiterated the arguments stated in the reply and stated that the alternative remedy is available under section 31 of the Act of 1981 to the petitioner and this writ petition is liable to be rejected on account of availability of alternative remedy by filing appeal.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Gujarat Pollution Control Board vs M/S Nicosulf Indst.& Export ... on 4 December, 2008
Thus, it is clear that the State Board delegated powers under section 31 (A) of the Act of 1981 to the Chairman of the State Board. There is no question of further ratification by the State Board. The ruling cited by the petitioner's counsel on Gujrat Pollution Control Board vs. Nicsulf Industries and Exports Private Limited and others (2009) 2 SCC 171 is not applicable in the instant case. The report of the inspection show that the petitioner violated the terms of the consent. The report is by an expert, who is a public servant and such is directly admissible and relevant in view of section 45 of the Evidence Act.
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2007) 1 scc 110, the Apex Court considered the matter relating to project known as Taj Heritage Corridor Project initiated by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. One of the main purpose for which the same was undertaken was to divert River Yamuna and to reclaim 75 acres of land between Agra Fort and the Taj Mahal and use the reclaimed land for constructing food plazas, shops and amusement activities. The Apex Court directed for a detailed enquiry which was carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). On the basis of the CBI report, the Apex Court directed registration of FIR and made further investigation in the matter. The Apex Court questioned the role played by the Minister for Environment, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Minister, Government of Uttar Pradesh concerned. By the intervention of the Apex Court, the said project was stalled.
Mahabir Coke Industry And Anr. vs Pollution Control Board And Ors. on 29 August, 1996
It may be mentioned that in Mahabir Coke Industry and another vs. Pollution Control Board and others AIR 1998 Gauhati 10, SLP was filed before the Apex Court and the Apex Court in Pollution Control Board v. Mahabir Coke Industry, (2000) 9 SCC 344, at page 345 held as under :