1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.4335 of 2008 [Shamrao D. Sahare & ors. Vs. The State of Mah. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. S. A. Gordey, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. S.M. Ukey, Adv., holding for Mr. S.K. Sanyal, Adv., for respondent no.2. ----- Coram : B.H. Marlapalle AND A.H. Joshi, JJ. Date : 2nd December, 2008. Heard Mr. Gordey, the learned counsel for the petitioners. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray for directions to the respondent no.2-Board to forthwith assess the present pollution ratio of village Patgowari, Taluka – Ramtek, Distt. Nagpur, on account of the establishment of 10 MW Biomass- based Power Project set up by the respondent no.3 in Survey Nos. 432, 433 and 429 of the said village, and further directions to revoke the Consent/No Objection granted by the Board to the respondent no.3. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 claim 2 to be agriculturists in villages Hetitotal and Patgowari respectively, and petitioner no.3 claims that he has agricultural land in village Mahuli. On notice, the respondent no.2 has filed an Affidavit-in-Reply, and it has been stated therein that on 29th June, 2006, the said respondent granted consent to respondent no.3 to establish its plant at village Patgowari, subject to various conditions. Respondent no.3 had sought to establish 10 MW Power Plant at the said village in April, 2006, and proposals were received by the Board to that effect, whereas the respondent no.1 had already granted clearance to the respondent no.3 on 21st March, 2007. It has been further pointed out that the Board had no reason to assess the pollution ratio of village Patgowari in view of the fact that there is no industry located within a distance of ten kilometers' radius from the proposed location of the industry, i.e., respondent no.3, and the area in which the plant was to be set up is predominantly the rice cultivating belt. In addition to rice, other crops, like cotton and Soya in the entire adjoining area, are also cultivated. The respondent no.3 proposed to use rice husk, cotton stalks and soya straw in addition to coal as raw materials 3 for generating electricity, and these materials have very high caloric value. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 found the said proposal to be more suitable in view of the fact that the respondent no.3 proposed to use abundantly found material for converting the same into energy, instead of using fast depleting fossil fuel only and, therefore, the respondent no.2 granted consent to respondent no.3 as mentioned above. It has been further pointed out that petitioner no.3, who claims to be a Professor as well as agriculturist, had also filed a complaint with respondent no.1 raising similar apprehensions as have been raised in the present petition. He had contended that there was a possibility of air pollution from the biomass-based electricity generation activity in the locality and the residents of the village would be sufferers. The complaint was forwarded to the Board, and on 9th January, 2008, the respondent no.3 was directed to erect an Electro-Static Precipitator. The Board also noticed, while granting the subsequent consent on 9th September, 2008, that the respondent no.3-Establishment has provided the following state-of-the-art water pollution control equipments for the control of air and water pollution:- [a] Electro Static Precipator to 4 the boiler with Stack having a height of 45 mtrs. [b] Effluent Treatment Plant comprising of neutralization and settling tanks. [c] Closed shed for storage of rice husk and other raw materials. [d] Covered belt conveyors for carrying rice husk and other raw materials. In addition, the respondent no.3 has also arranged for five acres of land for disposal of the ash. Based on these facilities installed, the Board has granted consent to respondent no.3 on 9th September, 2008, and it has been further stated by respondent no.2 that the Board is closely monitoring the conditions set out in the consent order dated 9th September, 2008. We have noted that while expressing their apprehensions, the petitioners have not stated the distance between their respective agricultural lands. There is no empirical data even in support of the apprehensions as of now, and more particularly, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out that any condition precedent, as has been set out in the Water [Prevention and 5 Control of Pollution] Act, 1974, or the Rules framed thereunder, has been breached by the Board before granting the consent order dated 9th September, 2008. Hence, we do not find any substance in the petition to consider the same for the reliefs prayed for as of now. Petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE |hedau|