wp5110.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5110 OF 2009 Sushil s/o Kmalnayan Bharuka, R/o-Agrawal Plaza, Apana Bazar, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, M.P.C.B. Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Member Secretary, Kalpatru Point, 2nd floor, Opp. to Cineplanet, Near Sion Circle, Sion (E), M.P.C.B., Mumbai-400 022, 3) The Regional Officer, Paryavaran Bhavan, Plot No.A-4/1, MIDC, Chikalthana, Behind Dainik Lokpatra, Near Seth Nandlal Dhoot Hospital, Jalna Road, Aurangabad, 4) M/s. Sarak Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Village Maliwada, Nashik Road, Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. wp5110.09 2 ... Shri.P.A. Kulkarni Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri.U.B. Bondar Advocate for Respondent No.2 and 3 Shri.A.V. Ghuge Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner claims to have purchased agricultural land at Maliwada, Tq. and Dist- Aurangabad, bearing Gut No.10, 11 and 85, near the Respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 manufactures Ferric Alum. The Petitioner has challenged the order passed by Respondent No.2 - Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (for short "Board") dated 28th March, 2008. The Petition was filed on 8th wp5110.09 3 June, 2009. 3. Consequent to notice issued, Respondents filed reply. The matter was heard from time to time. Respondent No.2 Board filed expert report. The last report submitted by the Board is dated 23rd September, 2011. 4. In substance, learned counsel Shri. Kulkarni appearing for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No.4 failed to comply with the mandatory directions issued by the Board which were condition precedent to allow Respondent No.4 to re-start manufacturing activities. The Board had clarified that in case of failure to comply with the conditions, the Board will have no option than to issue appropriate final directions. The learned counsel submits that as Respondent No.4 did not comply with all the directions, the Respondent No.4 factory unit is required to be closed down. In support of his submission, the wp5110.09 4 learned counsel for Petitioner placed reliance on the reported Judgment in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India and others, 2011 (7) SCALE Page No.768. 5. Learned counsel Shri. Bondar appearing for Board submits that the inspection of the Respondent No.4 unit was carried out by the experts of the Board and it was found that by and large, essential conditions stipulated under the order were complied with by the Respondent No.4 unit. The well water in the adjacent lands of the Petitioner's land was found contaminated. But according to the counsel, this contamination process started much earlier and would continue to be in the process for some more period. The counsel submits that in view of the compliance made by Respondent No.4, the further directions in this regard are not required to be issued by the Board. wp5110.09 5 6. Shri. Ghuge, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 submits that the Petition is actuated by ulterior motive. The Petitioner is not raising objections to the units which are situated in the surrounding area. The directors of Respondent No.4 had taken abundant precaution to comply with the instructions and orders issued by the Board. As of now, according to the counsel, the directors of Respondent No.4 have complied with all the conditions stipulated in the order. 7. We have perused the record, Judgments and orders placed before us, considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have perused the latest report dated 23rd September, 2011 submitted by the Board. The Petitioner's concern that his property, crop shall not be damaged due to violation of pollution laws, is a genuine concern. The Board was directed to inspect the premises of Respondent No.4 and accordingly Board inspected wp5110.09 6 the premises near-about three times during the pendency of this Petition. The counsel for the Board is now satisfied that the essential conditions for running the factory were found to have been complied with. In the facts of the case, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, we are not inclined to further investigate into the questions of facts, as the expert report is placed before this Court. We are not addressing the issue in respect of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that crops in the field of the Petitioner got damaged and well water is already contaminated. The Petitioner contended that due to this, he has suffered monetary loss. These contentions are denied by Respondent No.4. If advised, the Petitioner is at liberty to resort to appropriate remedies of claiming damages as permissible in law. We express no opinion on the said issue. 8. In the facts of the case, we direct the wp5110.09 7 Board to have quarterly inspection of the Respondent No.4 factory premises and maintain the record. If necessary, the Board may also issue instructions to Respondent No.4 from time to time. Respondent No.4 shall allow the Board Authorities to inspect the premises without any obstructions. In case the Board is of the view that in future essential conditions are violated, then the Board is entitled to resort to appropriate remedies as per the provisions of law. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/DEC11