IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5330 of 2010 1. Krishna Nand Jha S/O Late Laxmi Narayan Jha R/O Village & P.O - Kanhai , P.S - Ghanshyampur, District - Darbhanga, Proprietor, M/S Pankaj Mini Modern Dal Mill, New Industrial Estate, Bela, Darbhanga. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Bihar Patna 2. The Principal Secretary. Environment & Forest Department, Government of Bihar. 3. The Industries Area Development Commissioner, Bihar, Patna 4. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Purvi Gandhi Maidan, Udyog Bhawan, 1st Floor, Patna. 5. The Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna Through Its Chairman, 2nd Floor, Beltron Bhawan , Shastrinagar, Patna -800023. 6. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. 7. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Darbhanga. 8. M/S Kisan Rice & Dal Mill Through Its Proprietor, Bhola Prasad, New Industrial Estate , Bela , Darbhanga. ----------- 5 06.09.2011 None appeared on behalf of the petitioner when this matter was taken up on 05.09.2011 nor any body is present today to press this writ petition. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel for the Bihar Pollution Control Board, Mr. Piyush Lal, learned counsel for the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority and Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.8 are present. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the authorities of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board to take appropriate action against the private respondent No.8 for his failure to take preventive measure to control the pollution by running of his Rice Mills. It was the contention of the petitioner that whereas the Unit of the respondent No.8 is within the habitation area, he had not taken appropriate measures as envisaged under the provisions of the Air 2 (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) resulting in widespread air pollution by running of the Rice Mill. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board as well as by the private respondent No.8 both denying the averments made by the writ petitioner. It is the stand of the Pollution Control Board that the Unit of the respondent No.8 was inspected by the Board on 19.08.2010 and it was found that the Unit had adopted remedial measure for preventing nuisance by operation of the Rice Mill resulting in air pollution. It is stated that as the authorities of the Board were satisfied by the arrangements made by the private respondent No.8 hence he was being granted the Consent Order by the respondent Board and last of which was issued for the period 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011. It is stated that the Consent has been granted with certain stipulations requiring the private respondent No.8 to take proper care for preventing nuisance caused by flying of the paddy husk and for taking steps for plantation. It is the stand of the Board that even for the subsequent period, the respondent No.8 has submitted his application for renewal of „Consent to Operate Order‟, on 07.07.2011 and which is under process. It is thus contended that the grievance of the petitioner is misplaced. Having regard to the circumstances aforesaid and the submissions made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Pollution Control Board and the respondent No.8, nothing survives in the present writ petition and the same is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy under the Act if he feels so 3 aggrieved by the running of the Rice Mill of the respondent no.8 and if he feels that the respondent No.8 has been violating any of the conditions of the Consent to Operate Order or other provisions of the Act. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)