-1- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.1756/2004 CORAM: Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Petitioner Resoondents Gram PanchayatHadabandh, Development Block- Baghbahara, Post Office Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) Through Sarpanch Khorbahara Ram Diwan Son of Sikhram aged 47 years, resident of village Hadabandh, Tehsil Distt. Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh . Through: Secretary, Mining Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) 3. Chairman, Pollution Control Board. State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 4. M/S Orissa Concrete and Allied Industries Itd. R.S.D. Station cotony Raipur. Through: Chaturbhuj Agrawal 'Vandana' near circuit house square, Raipur Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition No.390/2006 1. Smt. Dehla Bai, Sarpanch. Gram Panchayat- Hadhabandh. District-Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Baldau Prasad Gram Panchayat Hadhabandh, BSock-Bagbahara, District-Mahasamund. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh. Through: Secretary, Minral Resources Department. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Mahasamund, l^^ig^^ii^ -2-- ^l^ District Mahasamund (CG) 3 Orissa Conkrit, Gram-Hadhabandh, Block- Bagbahara, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) Present:" Shri J.A. Lohani, leamed counsel forthe petitioner. Shri V.V.S: Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for State/respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Sudhir Bajpai, learned counsel with Shri R.S. Marhas, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri B.P. Sharma, iearneci cousel for respondent No. 4. ORAL ORDER (Passedon31stJuly,2006) The foilowing oral order of the Court was passed by S.R.Nayak, C.J. Gram Panchayat Hadabandh, Development Block-Baghbahara represented by its Sarpanch, has fiSed this writ petition initially complaining that the order dated 16.4.2004 marked as Annexure P-1 of the Collector. Distt. IVJahasamund, the 2nd respondent herein granting renewal of quarry lease for a period of 10 years from 30.9.2003 to 29.9.2013 is in violation of Chhattisgarh Minor iVlineral Rules, 1996 (for short the 'rules') and also on the ground tl-iat the operations carried on by the 4th rospondent industry in pursuance of the said lease have been polluting the surrounding areas thereby severely affecting iocal environment as well as health of human beings. cattles. irrigation and etc. In paragraphs Nos. 5.5,5.6 and 5.7 of the vvTit petition it Is complained thus:- "5.5 The reality came immediately after commencement of mining work by the respondent No. 4.The detonators/dynamites of very high power are used for the mining creating a earthquake like vibration in the vi!!age. The dust oozes out from the o» siueiuAo|diue eqi •seujiioeut eiji Aq pQiejdiuoo pue euop Suieq si Aiopej ©qtui ^iJo^ ejiiue ©qiisoiu|e pue sj®jnoqe|p jequunu sse| AJ©A e p©Ao|d©pseq t? 'ON »U9puodsej©41'jeiijes pejjeAe sy 'sjsjnoqei ©q^ p eje^aM eqi inoqe uoi»BAjesqoue Sui>{euj Aq PQ}BQJQ ueeq aAeq (BMeuej jo^ spunojS aqi ^q^ jeejo AjdLue ©q pinoM | '^-d 3yfi^3NNV ss pQxeuus 4014^. p Adoo ®M1 'TOOZ'C'6 P9^P UO!lBpU9U,ILU039J 9pIA 9SB©|©q^ p |BM9uej 04^ pepU9iuiuo3Qj s^uepuodsej 941 -sp©j eseqip MOU)| ui s^idsep pue siuepuodssj jeqp eq? Aq p8)|oojjeAO uesq 9Aeq ^ 'ON luepuodsey ©qip^ied eqi uo suoipc eseqi 'pesiiuojd s®6uip|inq JOOLJOS ©LI} pepmisiuoo SBL| JQU yinoApuepsAojdLuo jeq^jsu seq Ij •e6B||jA aqi p iueiudo|©Aepe^ p ejeo ue^ei seq jou J&UB pe>|oo| j9i|ij9U seq > •ON luepuodsej ©41^•g,, „ •QIUJI p iuiod Aue ye uwop jj^ Aeiu qojqM 'uoji.ejqiA 9L|i 01 enp PS^OBJO OS|B seq Suipjinq ]ooqos @qi '||B ©Aoqv•GuueMoqs euois pue esjou 941 p pj^jje eje Buipiinq |ooqos ui GuiApn^s uejp|iLio sqi 'suoseaj eAoqe 01 ehp psjiods OS|B seq punojB UOI^BLUSJO eijl 'siqi SQpjseg 'SuueMOijs euois ©qijo yaj^ UIBU.19J pUB SnOjOSUOO SAeMjB 9JB Aeqi pue SJ©GB|{!A eqi p seA|| ©41 jeSuepue seuo»s p seoeid ||BIUS pUB|6iq p jeMoqs qong "Bujisejq e si ojQift j©A8ueqM seniq OL|I luo^ dojp seuois p seoejd Sjq 'sQuiji ^y •9sn p y\o Buio6 A||enpej6 si pue p©^n||odsi JO^BM ©41 linsej p se pue isnp qiiM pejeAOO suieujej eGGjjiA eqi p s|ue»941 •ueJpijqopuB pe6e 941 uo Ajnfui Suisneo Aq seieujui eqi BuiBeiuep UMOP ||o^ seji} pue se^ejo poj pe|A»ueqyee ©41'pe^joejo ©ABL|se6B||iA 941 ui sesnoLj AUBLU 'sGujiSBiq ei|i p suoRBjqiA 94^ 01 ena 9-9,, "^ :^)A .-•^ „ '96e||iA equo puej SuizejB 'piey jejniinouSe 941 peijods eAeq sisnp eseqi •»snpp spno|o ^o uoiieejo ui isA|eieo se >|jo osje 'oie s)ion4 'seuiqoeiu j^Aoiuyijee AAesq jo lueiueAouj ©qi 'Bujiseiq pue seuiqoeu p lueiueAoiu jo^ esje Cuiujiu —cc- 4 - •'^ villagers have been ghren. This order of recommendations have been made without the concurrence of the Gram Panchayat and without even affording anyopportunity of hearing to man." 2. This writ petition was presented in this Court on 25.6.2004. After filino the writ petition.additional pleadings and documents were also filed. Annexure P-12 which is a report submitted by the Regional Officer of Chhattjsgarh Environment and Consen/ation Board dated 24.7.2004. tt appears that Regional OfRcer of Chhattisgarh Environment and Conservation Board. in pursuance of an order issued by the Ministry of Forest. Rehabilitation Environment dated 17.7.2004 had inpected the area in which the 4th respondent has established his industry and submitted his report. As per the said report, during the inspection. the Regional OfRcer found the following: 1. The industries management has not made any proper management of overburden and specific arrangement of drainage huge deposits of overburden are lying all over at Land area and adjacent grassland, Byron land etc. have n©t been utilized properly due towhich the villagers are facing much difficulties. 2. The work has been affected due to spurting of few amount of small and big stones caused due to un-timed explosion/ blasting work. 3. Nearby plants/trees, grassland and fields are been affected from the dust oozing out due to crushing work. 4. Appropriate royalty has also not been received by the Gram Panchayat query mining work. 5. The said Industries had not paid sufFicient ClaSms to villagers. 6. Noise Pollution is created due to blasting and crushing works -s- which specially affecting the school children, in addition to this there is high possibility of damage caused to village buildings due to vibration after blasting. The matter pertaining to Public Interesttherefore it is expected for due action in the subject matter at your level. Kindly examine all the facts at your own level and let the same be informed to this office for the proposed action immediately." 3. At this stage itself, it needs to be noticed that a letter written by Smt. Deiha Bai and Shri Baldau Prasad dated 15-01-2006 to the Chief Justice of this Court complaining against th©activities/operations of the 4th respondent was treated as taken-up Writ Petition No.390/2006 and notice was ordered to the respondents. 4. This Court in the context of the allegations made by the petitioner in W.P.No.1756/2004 and the documents produced before it, the Court thought it appropriate to secure the latest status report in order to appreciate whether there is any substance in tho allogations lovellod against tho 4 respondent industry or not. Accordingly, this Court, on 04-05-2005, directed the Chairman, Poliution Control Board or any other Officer duly authorized by him. to conduct a spot inspection along with Collector/Additional Collector, District-Mahasamund within 7 days and to file report. Accordingly. Shri R.P. Tiwari, Superintendent Engineer of Chhattisgarh Environment and Conseivatlon Board who was authorized by the Chairman of the Pollution ControE Board to conduct spot inspection along with Additional Collector Mahasamund conducted spot inspection and filed status report on 27-06-2005. At this stage itself. it needs to be noticed that Shri R.P.Tiwari himselfwas, on an earlier occasion, had filed the report Annexure P-12 dated 24-07-2004. !n the report dated 27-06-2005. it is stated thus:- -c>- "^) ^^ ^w ^te ^ wi^ ^^r fN^g ^r ^^FT ^r ^R UFT ~^SWi, f^M 6|14)6|15'<1 ^^r 1^ l^rr ^5i\ti^ ^ isiti^ ^TT yncra ^ 16 f^.Tft. ^? ^t'H^4-6|IJ|6tl^l ^ ^ tol^ I^TcT t I ^^PT ^(^zn- ^TT ^?R ^e ITPT ?T^T ^ 3j|cj|\4i^l ^ ^ cT7PTrT 500 "!te ^ INcTt I . (^r) ^RFT ^cf ^?R ^^ "c^ ^roT (^UT RcjNui cNT fN^FT) ST^rtoT 1974, ^4 cjT^ (5T^q ?^TT ftePT) ST^WT 1981 ^ 3RfTTcT 06.10.1997 ^f ifcR T^ct ^pg "^H- 60,000 '4tf^? ^ ?rfN^ ^W^ ^ f^ w^r ^ ^ ^ if^TT ^ Pi^a spjlR^'^l ^ ^NT ^lddHl ^t ?n^r w^ t 16 ^r srra?K ^ sT^ 5TM 1^N ^ ^?R ^ ^rpff ^TT^, N W^ Pt^t ^ ^T ^ ^FT^ ^-T^ ^^ f^I ^ 11 ^PTST fNFT gT?T -^FT ^T 1.4 4- 1.27= 2.67 ^? ^PPT oft^ TR f^IT 'TOT ^i) ^r.R ^ ^^ ijf^zn- ^ -^ T[],nr ^ crrg T^pr ^crr t i f^n^ ^^"1 ^- ^ c(^ ^ .^)^^ T^ ^••yf ^^ cb-^RR f^RCT ^ WFFH ^t TJ^ t 'oCci -CJT^ ff^BfCTT c|?r ^sq ^rT f v}t ^N c^ ^R ^^T ^ t I f^TN? 20.05.2005 ^c)' 28.05.2005 ^ f^'^PT ^ ^TTO ^rT WT5I c(?l4^d 1T^ ^ I (£?) f^^rWr srterNT ^T-^T ^TR ^ ^R ^^ ^TT "im ^^ ^ •^ f^-^Tfem- cT^ WR^ 31^- f - d) ^ -§KT ^'•T-f % ffM ste-^J^ cfTT -^3^^ ^TT ^ sTT^ .^ vlTc^ 4 f^ ^TTciM, ^xn^cj?, ^4 ^^T cj?j^ ^ ^cTT^ ^^ fN^. 1 1 ^t^.&. S'l. 9al^h 1 g IPIIA Ibty l?l*sK 1^1^ It^bl^ -/Oei7'ZL t?h^ ^Pjti ^ J^js^ l3^1kK IM9 (h^ <^ lf?ll3l9 ^ (bPllih\ ^ ^ltO^ Hj^ ^. la^^ (s) 1 1 ^v>^ ^'\. Sal^jli I | lii-ljt. ib^l M^LiS ^. -/SfrC'88 J^ ^IS-IS PMt^h WL ^ 81. .<t?tH^ 1^^ M^S ^ 1.-1. Pal^h Itb l^jl?> Iht^ h fejlj IAI^ t3f?||ih (yi ZOQZ ^lh ^ ^ t-OOZ J^Lt& ^ ^. ^Mfc. li^ 1 i ll^ ihUl ^h-l^ l^ l-l-t^ ^ ^I^IS OMkh hUt (t?) 1 i J^k ^1-3^ ^l ^ MtJlJaJ^ ^ ^J^i l^fe ^h ^yi £^J^J^ ^ Mh-i^iJS :M1£ | tA»l*>^ i w^h ^ ^ ^h^j | 1 ^; ^ i^H3, JJjJS Mfi. ^^lk OOZ Ik^ ^tey St? I Ihlr Iblh ^^4h J^Jl IdJl ^Mt. 061. JaA fr8 :l^<t> l^ 'lhl» Ihty ^hlh itfc mii ^s. l^B. J^3 ^. SOOS'SOSl. tblt*^j ML J^U-A j^ ^. J3iljL ^l mj:i-lMi£ 1 | IMh-lMK; ^ 2i2J|J,t kla J^JS MK. ^h S^ :l<th<& ^i | Udi 112^ fchlh Efc l^llt ^ J^li-J^ Mi IMl^. ^ ^. ^\yh ^. ?t<b^ j<fc gooz'sozi. «»i^^j| | Mi lt?(y hhiti ^ jy^ ^ lMh-lMt£ !sh b^t, j^ ^^jh <b ^l<b& Itb Wfr k.h^^ W^ <h Ifl^ (e) 1 |^^l^^hS±Mk& b^y lh?o?> hhsK ^t ^?Kb <t> jtbb^ ^^& ^*^ 1 Mr Mh h-^ UMJ Mtl-liit& ^ ll?^?t 41b!5> M^h ^b-^|(R InMtb <b ?|Ch^y :J1[£ | I l^ IMl i^ ; ^ ^413^{\ h ^l^l, ^ 4tk?b 1 Ihlr Ibl^tb ^l^\y W^^ ^. InJA^ (£) I I ^h ^. Nhpb ^jli^j ^^\ ^tb l^kl^ l<b Ihy^lft l^ tfr^jlb MJi :iy£ 1 1 Sbm lh<y hiS. ^ ^Jfc M?^g ?0"1- lls^ 'Ct.S •li iM.\^ j^t ^ isb>18'ly (^ 9' -1- -<?~ (e) scnteT ^c| ^pr ^r •^T^T scipr 5^07 -cCT TTFFr f^rN? 28.05.2005 cj^f TTR c^ ^cT -c^ rTRT fW 'IPTT I srf^ 5T^FT W? 54.1 ^cld qr£n- TI^ vff f^ f^itf^ TfHc^ 55 ^<s)d ^ ^R t I 4RUIH ^m^ fNe q^^[6S 2 '•?1oTTt:f t 1 ^W ^szrr sd|^| ^ ^q^f c(?cpr T^ ScrPr ^ ^oft w^\ cj5t sr^srr ^ cCT Tricr ^ qcFfr ^- ^\L||^,^ ^Nt fW^r '•^ t i (7) W^ ^ fN^Tf^RT ^RT$t ^ ^srsr ^ 'g^ Nterr 1^ ^7^1 siter^, q^RT^ % ^S^ f^Zff TTOT I 'g®?'RlPb^lt ^c[ ^crp^q srl^c^ ^ sn^ q-^ ^Tn^/^^^r /o5 ^i\4^, f^n^ 01.06.2005 ^NT SPPRT ^rar t f^ f^'^^ ^TT ^N^ % W^R[ -^v^ -^ T^ TJPT ^T^T ^ ^t TTT^ qq j ^T^f c^ ^T qRRltC 3 ^TcFrT t I ". 5. The petitioners have not filed any objection to the status report dated 27-06-2005. Even otherwise, there is absolutely no good reason for us to doubt the integrify of the said report. We say this. because. on earlier occasion, Shri R.P. Tiwari himself had conducted the enquiry as directed by the MEnistr^' of Forest & rehabilitation had recorded his finding adverse to the industr^. it appears that in view of the lacunae pointed out by Shri R.P. Tiwari on sariier occasion, the management of the Industry had cured/removed the dsllcienciss and provided required infrastructure facilities to confirm to the prescriptions made by the Pollution Controi Board, State of Chhattisgarh. As per the iatest status report, the operation of the 4th respondent industry does not seem to cause pollution in the area. 6. The PoISution Control Board had issued instructions to the I^anagement of the 4 respondent Factory to remove deficiencies and provids required infrastructure facilities to comply with the statutory -3 - %^ ^i -^ prescriptions, norms and fiuidelines. AJthough, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1756/2004 would submit that the findings now recorded by Shri R.P.Tiwari on the latest status report dated 27-06-2005 do not reflect the current state of affairs and pollution still subsists in the area, we have no good reason to doubt the integrity of the report. No maiafide are attributed to Shri R.P.Tiwari. Furthermore, it needs to be noticed that it is not that Shri R.P.Tiwari alone inspected the factory ' area and drew up the report. He conducted the spot inspection in the presence of Addjtional Collector, Mahasamund and the Additiona! Collector, Nahasamund is a!so a signatory to the report. We cannot doubt the integrity of every government officer as a doubling monster. . ?- -^•^. Satish 7. We are satisfied that as per the latest status report dated 27-06-2005. the fourth respondent industry is not polluting the environment as alleged InitialJy in the Writ Petition. There is no need to further monitor this case. It is accQrdingiy disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- DiUp Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge