IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3047 of 2001 NORTH BIHAR LEATHER INDUSTRIES Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 10. 22.1.2009 Heard Mr. S.D.Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sarad Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Mr. Shivendra Kishore, for the Bihar State Pollution Board, Mr. Manindra Kumar for respondent no.6, Mr. Umesh Narain, for the respondent no.9 and the learned counsel for the State. It appears that this writ application somehow has become totally misdirected as against the relief which was sought originally therein. The reliefs, which were sought in this writ application, read as follows: “(i)Issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents, restraining them from allowing new tannery units to be established in the industrial area Bela, Muzaffarpur, so long as the primary requirement of disposal system of the effluent water from the existing as well as the proposed units is not set up by the respondent North Bihar Industrial 2 Area Development Authority. (ii) Commanding the respondent authority to stop the operation of respondent no.6 forthwith, as it has been found that the said unit has been allowed to set up and operate its tannery in violation of the terms and conditions of the Authority by respondent no.4 for some ulterior motives and is still operating on account of the patronage of respondent no.3 despite orders having passed by the higher authorities, both of NBIADA and the State Government to stop the operation of the said unit and also because in violation of the conditions respondent no.6 is causing its effluent to flow in such a manner that the units of the petitioners have been filled up with the effluent of the said unit resulting in extensive damage to in closure of the units of the petitioners during the last six months. (iii) To issue appropriate direction to the Managing Director of NBIADA commanding him to complete the inquiry expeditiously against the respondent development officer Shri N.K.Yadav, who has been found to have committed serious irregularities in allotment of plots of land to new tannery 3 units, including respondent no.6, in the leather complex of the industrial area, knowing full well that setting up of any further new unit therein without the primary requirement of water disposal system having been set up by NBIADA, will lead to the closure of the existing units.” From the aforementioned reliefs it would be clear that somehow a dispute was squarely lying between the petitioners and industrial unit, viz-a-viz respondednt no.6, M/s Green Leather Industries, Muzaffarpur. Mr. Sanjay frankly conceded with such view. In fact a larger question is involved as to whether it is not the responsibility of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority to provide common effluent treatment plan for reducing/ eliminating the intensity of pollution in the area. Mr. Sanjay in this context has also placed before this Court a proceeding dated 23.8.2007 issued under letter no. 1844 dated 23.8.2007 of BIADA, which would go to show that certain joint decisions were taken in this regard. As this document is admitted, the same is taken on 4 record and the decision taken in the meeting dated 31.7.2007 is also reproduced hereinbelow: 1- ^^fcgkj ds dPpk peM+ksa dks Lexfyax ds }kjk fcgkj ls ckgj Hkstk tkrk gS ftl dkj.k fcgkj ds peM+s ds m|kksaxksa dks dPpk peM+k ugha fey tkrk gSA bl laca/k esa ljdkj ls i=kpkj dj leL;k dh vksj ljdkj dk /;ku vkd`"V djk;k tk;sxkA 2- vkS|ksfxd {ks=] eqtIQjiqj ds Infrastructure dks lq/kkjus dh fn'kk esa lM+dksa dh ejEerh gsrq vko';d dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA vkS|ksfxd {ks=k ds peM+ksa dh bdkbZ ds pkjksa vksj iDds ukys dk fuekZ.k fd;k tk;sxkA bu ukyksa ds }kjk bdkbZ;ksa ls fudyus okys primary treated ikuh dks lh0bZ0Vh0ih0 ds fy, vftZr Hkwfe esa iDdk ukyk cuokdj] mlesa feykrs gq, bl ikuh dks ugj@ukyk esa cgk;k tk,sxkA blds fy, vkS0{ks0 ds ukyk vkSj vftZr Hkwfe esa cuus okys ukys dks tksM+sus gsrq] vko';drkuqlkj dkyHkVZ dk fuekZ.k fd;k tk;sxkA izca/k funs'kd us dk;Zdkjh funs'kd fc;kMk eqtIQjiqj dks funsZ'k fn;k fd mDr dk;Zgsrq es0 yky ,.M ,lksfl;sV] iVuk ls lEidZ dj l{ke bfUt0 dks bl dk;Z gsrq izfrfu;qDr djkosa vkSj lHkh vko';d dkjZokbZ 'kh?kz lEiUu djkosa A 3- ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd lHkh bdkbZ;ksa ls fudyus okys ty dks bdkbZ ds ikl ,d paEcj esa tek fd;k tk, vkSj bl ikuh ds ukys esa fudyus dh O;oLFkk dh tk,A iznw"k.k fu;a=.k i"kZn] eqtIQjiqj ds dk;kZy; ds l{ke ink0 }kjk bl psEcj ls bdkbZ ls fudyus okys ty dk sample collect fd;k tk, vkSj bldh tkap dj lqfuf'pr fd;k t, fd bdkbZ;ksa ls fudyus okyk ikuh iznw"k.k fu;a=.k i"kZn }kjk fu/kkZfjr standard ds vuq:i gSA bl lEcU/k esa izca/k funs'kd] fc;kMk us lnL; lfpo] iznw"k.k fu;a=.k i"kZn ls vuqjks/k fd;k fd oks 5 eqtIQjiqj fLFkr vius dk;kZy; ds l{ke ink0 dks bl lEcU/k esa vko'; funsZ'k nsus dh d`ik djsA 4- ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k fd peM+s ds lHkh bdkbZ;ksa ls ,d lkFk 'kiFk&i=k izkIr fd;k tk;s fd oks vius bdkbZ esa yxs bZ0Vh0ih0 dks pkyw gkyr esa j[krs gq, pykosaxs vkSj muds bdkbZ;ksa ls fudyus okyk ty iznw"k.k fu;a=.k i"kZn }kjk fu/kkZfjr standard ds vuq:i gh gksxkA 5- ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd peM+s dh bdkbZ;ksa ds }kjk iznw"k.k fu;=.k i"kZn ,oa izkf/kdkj ij tks dsl ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fd;k x;k gS] oks dsl bdkbZ;ksa }kjk okil fy;k tk;sxkA 6- peM+s dh bdkbZ;ksa ds izfrfuf/k us izca/k funs'kd] fc;kMk ls vuqjks/k fd;k fd oks iqu% ,dckj eqtIQjiqj vkus dh d`ik djsa vkSj vkS|ksfxd {ksa= eqtIQjiqj ds peM+s dh bdkbZ;ksa dk fufj{k.k Loa; djsa rkfd leL;kvksa ls izca/k funs'kd Loa; Hkh voxr gks ldsA izca/k funs'kd us viuh lgefr iznku djrs gq, dgk fd oks 'kh?kz gh iznw"k.k fu;a=.k i"kZn ,oa vU; lEcfU/kr foHkkxksa ds l{ke ink0 ds lkFk vkS0{ks0] eqtIQjiqj dk fufj{k.k djsaxsA 7- izca/k funs'kd us peM+s dh cUn ;k fuekZ.kk/khu bdkbZ;ksa] tks ifjR;Dr voLFkk esa gS] ds vkoaVu dks jn~n djus dk funsZ'k dk;Zdkjh funs'kd] fc;kMk dks fn;kA** From the reading of the proceedings it appears that even the other part of the grievance of the petitioners which has become the main relief after abandoning the original prayer made in this writ application seems to be in serious consideration of the authorities of the State of Bihar as also BIADA. 6 That being so, this Court would direct all the parties i.e. the petitioners and the BIADA to take further consequential action in furtherance to the decision taken on 31.7.2007. In the event the aforementioned decisions taken by the BIADA, as enumerated above, are not implemented within a reasonable period of time it will always be open for the petitioners to take recourse as is available in law. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/