Civil Writ Petition No. 11762 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 11762 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.7.2009 Jagdish and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 6. Mr. Arun walia, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for respondents No.8 to 11. T.S. Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This writ petition, filed in public interest, challenges the validity of four No Objection Certificates granted in favour of respondents No.8 to 11 for setting up of Stone Crushing Units in the revenue estate of village Gudana, District Bhiwani, in the State of Haryana, on the ground Civil Writ Petition No. 11762 of 2008 2 that the same are in violation of the citing norms prescribed by the State Government and consequently hazardous for the forest area and the plantation in its immediate neighbourhood. The petitioners' case as set out in the writ petition is that the No Objection Certificates issued in favour of the respondents, mentioned above, not only authorize them to set up Stone Crushing Units within the prohibited distance of 1 Km. from Government forest area but also close to the plantation in the Arawali Range undertaken at a considerable cost with the financial support provided by the World Bank. It is alleged that the certificates issued to respondents No.8 to 11 would cause environmental degradation in the area affecting the people living in the neighbourhood in particular and the public at large in general. In the reply, affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No.2, 4 & 5, it has been, inter-alia, stated that the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bhiwani, had, in terms of a communication dated 26.11.2008, requested the Chairman, Pollution Control Board, Haryana, to cancel the No Objection Certificates issued to respondents No.8 to 11 as the proposed Stone Crushers fall within 1 Km. from the forest area, hence, in violation of the citing norms. The affidavit goes on to state that notices appear to have been issued on the basis of a report suggesting that the sites selected in the same were more than 1 Km. away from the forest area which aspect was verified by the Range Forest Officer, Dadri, and Patwari of the Revenue Department, on 15.9.2008 and the distance between the Crushers and forest area found to be less than 1 Km. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.7 Haryana State Pollution Control Board, it is inter-alia submitted that the Civil Writ Petition No. 11762 of 2008 3 “consent to operate” in the year 2008-09 has been refused to all the four Crushers vide letter dated 11.2.2009 not because the Units were situated within 1 Km. from the forest area but because the air pollution control measures, provided by the Units, were not working properly. Copies of the orders of refusal have also been placed on record by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, from a reading whereof it does appear that the refusal of consent to the Units for the year 2008-09 proceeds on the basis that the Units have failed to install the requisite measures and the sprinklers etc. were not found working. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sangwan, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners submitted that although the Crushers have been shut down on account of refusal of consent to operate for the year 2008-09, yet the reason for doing so may not be the only reason available to the Authorities. He urged that apart from the fact that the Units were not found to have installed or kept functional air pollution control measures, a more important and substantial reason for shutting down of Crushers was that the same were set up within 1 Km. of the forest area. This aspect, according to counsel for the petitioners, has not been taken note of by the Pollution Control Board, while refusing consent for the year 2008-09 which may mean that respondents No.8 to 11 may again apply for grant of consent and resume their activities even when the Crushers are working contrary to the citing norms prescribed by the Government. He urged that this Court could issue appropriate directions in the matter especially when, there is an apprehension that the Pollution Control Board may abuse its authority once again and grant No Objection Certificates without taking note of the violation of the citing norms. Civil Writ Petition No. 11762 of 2008 4 On behalf of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, it was submitted by Mr. Walia that No Objection Certificates were issued to respondents No.8 to 11 after the distance between forest area and the Crusher site was verified and found to be more than 1 Km. There was, therefore, no abuse of authority by the Pollution Control Board to call for any adverse inference against it. It was further submitted that the discrepancy regarding distance between the Crushers and the forest area, or the road came to the light only after a team comprising District Forest Officer, Tehsildar, Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani and the Executive Engineer, Haryana State Pollution Control Board had visited the place and taken fresh measurements. There was, according to learned counsel, no basis or the apprehension of the petitioners that as and when the Crusher owners apply again for grant of No Objection Certificates, the Board would ignore the citing norms or the fact that anyone of the Crushers are situated within the prohibited distance from the forest area or from any scheduled road. Mr. Randhir Singh, counsel appearing for the State contended that even if the report marked Annexure R7/18 submitted by three members committee referred to earlier was ignored, the report submitted by Range Forest Officer, Dadri and Patwari of the Revenue Department was sufficient to show that granting of No Objection Certificates to respondents No. 8 to 11 was unjustified having regard to the fact that the Crushers were located within 1 Km. of the forest area. It was further submitted that the Crushers were, according to the said report, at a distance of 10 meters from the Arawali Hills Plantations, which is rightly claimed by the petitioners, has been undertaken by the Civil Writ Petition No. 11762 of 2008 5 Government at considerable expense with the help of the World Bank. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar and perused the record. The purpose underlying this petition stands achieved as the Crushers have been shut down, no matter on the ground that no air pollution control measures have been taken by the Units concerned. The petitioners still apprehend that the Units may resume their activities after obtaining fresh No Objection Certificates from the Pollution Control Board, who may, in turn, ignore the citing norms and the reports that the Units are located within the prohibited distance of 1 km. from the forest and the scheduled road. There is no basis for that apprehension especially in the light of submissions made by Mr. Walia that as and when any fresh request is made by respondents No. 8 to 11 for the grant of a No Objection Certificate, the Board shall keep the citing norms in view as also the reports received from various authorities regarding the distance between the Crushers and the forest land, the plantations, the scheduled road and the village. That statement should, in our opinion, sufficiently allay apprehension of the petitioners that the Units can resume their activities in disregard of the citing norms and the environmental concerns expressed by the people of the area. In the result, therefore, we dispose of this writ petition with the observation that as and when any fresh request is made by respondents No.8 to 11 for grant of fresh No Objection Certificates for resuming the Stone Crushing business in question, the competent authority shall keep the citing norms in view as also the reports received by them from officers concerned, including the forest authorities and the Committee of Civil Writ Petition No. 11762 of 2008 6 three officers, who had visited the spot and measured the distance. Needless to say that the parties aggrieved of any order which Haryana State Pollution Control Board may pass on any such application shall be free to agitate the matter in fresh proceedings. No costs. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 15, 2009 “DK”