85 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH z BIL'AsPUR w a» w. SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI SR. NAYAK, CJ. WRIT PETITION NO.976 of 2004. 1. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Ram Dayal Sharma, Aged 43 years. Narsingh Nandwana S/o Late Shri Ramlal Nandwana, Aged 45 years. Garjan Singh Dubey, Slo Late Shri Pyareiai Dubey, aged 80 years. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Ram Dayal Sharma, Aged 35 years. All Rio Ganipara Ward No. 14 Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Omprakash Gilda, Slo Shri Ramlal Gilda, Resident of Ganjpara, Ward No. 14, Bemetara 2. Municipal Council, Bemeuré, thraugh : Chief Municipal Officer. Nagar Palika Parishad Bememm, District — Durg (CG) 3 State of (2.6. Through Collector. Durg PETITIONERS 2 3 4. 5 Prgent: Mr. Rajeev $hrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwarl, learned Sr. Adv., with Mr. Shashlbhushan, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Anand Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2. MLUtkarsha Verma, learned counsel for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21 57 December, gods) . This writ petition is hled by five persons who are residents of Ganipar‘a. Ward No.14. Bemetara, district Durg complaining that if the first respondent is allowed to establish Huller Type Mini Rice Mill in the proposed site; that lv‘iiii would create “not oniy immense disturbance to R Santosh Kumar sahu, Slo Shri Bi!as am Sahu, Aged 32 yeats. MU n 8B their studies but would also cause an irreparable loss to their future prospects“. As l could see from the writ petition, the grievance of the pefitioner is aiso rested on the fact thai on an eariier occasion “nu objection certificate' issued to the tirst respondent was cancelled and therefore the second respondent ought not to have subsequently granted ‘no objection certiticate'. it is also alleged that if the proposed Huller Type Mini Rice Mill is permitted to be established in the site proposed it would create “immense pollution” in the area. These are the only the allegations made in the writ petition. (2i Having heard learned counsel for the parties, l do not think that it is a fit case where this Court would undertake adjudication of the lis brought before the Court and pronounce its opinion. lt is needless to state the issues that arise for decision-making are all essentially questions of fact. Furthermore, as a hypothesis, it could not be said that simply because on earlier occasion 'no objection certificate’ issued to the hrst respondent was cancelled by the second respondent, that fact itself Without anything further would not come in the way of the second respondent granting no objection certificate at a later stage if the frrst respondent were to comply with the law requirements. Furthermore, it needs to be noticed that whether the establishment of the Rice Mill in the proposed site would pollute the environment or would impair any of the legal rights or constitutional rights of the residents of Ganjpara village are all questions of fact which have to be resko‘lved‘lon & the basis of the evidence that may be adduced by the parties. it may also require examination of the parties and tendering such parties for “cross- examination by each other. (3) This writ petition is aiso liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-disclosure of a relevant fact. in his reply fiied by the mat respondent on 12107/2004 in this case, the first respondent in paragraphs 1 and 2 has stated that the petitioners have deiiberateiy did not disctose the fact of initiation of the eroceedings by the Sub Divisionai Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminai Procedure (for short the Code? to which the petitioners are parties. The petitioners for the reasons best known to them have not ohosen to file any rejoinder to the reply denying the above allegation. it is well settled that a person who approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for discretionary remedy should approach this Court with clean hands and he should disclose eaoh and every material fact which will have bearing on the decision—making on the issue brought before the Court. it cannot be said that the pendenoy of the proceedings under Section 133 of the Code with regard to the same Rice Mill has no bearing on the decision-making on the issue brought before this Court by way of this writ petition. Perhaps this Court would not have entertained this writ petition if it were to notice at the stage of admission itself that the jurisdictional Sub Divisional Magistrate had already initiated the proceedings under Section 133 of the Code. Nevertheless, i am of oonsidered opinion that the right to move the jurisdictional civil Court or other statutory fora for the alleged violation of the fundamental right or statutory right should not be denied to the petitioners. i think that accountability for suppression made by the petitionérsin the pleading would adequately met with by imposing exemplary costs. W? W new (4). in the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed with exemplary cost fixed at Rupees Five Thousand payable .iLit 88 to the first respondent wiihin one month. Howevsr. it is made ciear that this order would nut come in the way of the petitioners working out their remedies either before the jurisdictions! Court or before the statutory or quasi judiciai for a, in aocordance with iaw.