wGH {EQUR'Y OF €%HA’?T§$G£R% AT mLASPLER EWESWN gENm‘E @QMRI: EQN’RLE SHm RAJEEV GUPTA Cd. H€¥WELE SHR% SQNEL K$§££§R $%NH§%, J. Wri? Pe€§t§9m imi? N@.2gé§a~i 6f 2@§8 §e€éfi§m )r (3 ”x Bhcia Chakradhari, son of Sonuram Chakrdhari, aged about 38 years, regizient a? Kaliyari, PO Champaran, Teh3§§ Abhanpur, Diatrict Raipur Santosh Shukm, sOn 9f Latte SN Shukia, aged abom 4"; yeara resider: 0f V§X!age Bweurla, PO Abhanpur, Di$trict Raipur “éiERgUS Eggmwww Siate of Chha‘i‘iisgam, Qhrough the Seore‘iary, Denartment of Genera! Aciministra‘iian l Pubiic Grievancea, DKS Shaman, Raipur The Chhati§sgarh Enviranmental & Conservation §~3arc§, New HKE N039, ‘aO & H Tatiaandh, Raipur (CG) The Poi%u"iion Cantrol Board, thmugh the Secretary, Anand Nagar, Ra§pur {CG} M/s Hanuman Agro Limited, §3aragaon, Raipur Pet§£§an Miami? Amd& 226%??? a? the {Mmimfzian M End§a Presant: Smi Kshitiz Sharma, ccunse} fmthe petitionerS. Shri KiShere Bhaduri,‘Additiona§ Advacae Generaf for the State I reamndent N01 Shri Sud’nér Bagpai! ccunsei fer re‘sbcndents N92 & 3. €3h‘ri HK Shukia, ccunse! for respondent No.4. CERE§R ’ mi?“ hiaauaryy 2§€€E§ The fa§i3wing ordey 9f the (3mm wa$ pa$$ed m arwgeev @Qmégg ,1 \amEu m L@&med counsei far we pariiea am heard. 9 F’miiiowi’s 8heia Chakravhey'i and gamiosh Shukia, have g“ fSlEoWErig rem“? : "’§G.? A Wm and/or an arder in the name of Wm of mandamus d5 issue commanding and directing ihe respanrienis ta preciuce before ihisi Hcn’bie Caur’i aaii ihe reievani recoms. iiies, $anciien sways, no obiectiori ceiiificai’es, eic., ieievani i0? the diiscesai Gf the cage. m2 A iv ii mdf i“ an Qz'da'r in ihe naiure of Wi’i‘i m mamiamus do iSgue déi‘eciing ihe {egpandems Siaie m ewes N mmpe. .m r94 maem i o 4 owned induatry , c: cam§3iy with the movisions 0f the Water & An” pci uiion 'i&§iwi&tio:1$ degcribed herein above arid farther direct Ehe 415m; 3 to take aciion ,ar pmaecution 9i aii the f” pgrgcms conwmea‘ am} fisi‘rs in~~charge eta, of the m y m peiééian siyiea? ag ‘Pub§ic mtexreat Litigaiion’ fsx’ the m3 A wt and/or an oma in iha naiure 0i wirit of iiiaiidamus d3 Ewe to the v'iate authoritiea to commii% we COTpeni—iataori uriar‘r two heai'ia i ariwiy f9; reversing ii‘e awmgy ami fm paymam tc 2m; iduai Le. me viiiaxgas 0. the ammsam Viiiageg under ihe egiabiiwaci pi’incigwS {if paiime pave and after identifyirig the guffemra pay ihem the compensatien after recavering ii fz'em the fespsndent No4 aS per iaw arid ii me paiiuter ina‘ugirv faii to a v +he ccmaensaiian ihen ar~ orticx by a Sea for cmsum of the induaiiy O 4 A wrsi mdfar an créer in tha natuie of appropi’iam wrii do isgue re$trgiining the regncmieni Na 4 irem furiher poiiuiing ihe waier shame a am apmo‘oni‘te {iirectlar‘ m ihisz; {egard may ease be is5ued to the respcmdent State axumorQ'Eies. 19.5 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Ccuri’, may deem fit in the fads and drcumaances of the case. 10.6 Best m‘ the petiiien may alse be awarded.” 3) The pgtitiawerg thua m substance, were seeking a directian m respandenw, NM, 2 and 3 for taking appropriate action against reopondent No.4 M/s Hanuman Agra Limiied, Raiour forthe aHegecé cauomg of waier and air pollution. 4-} Aiong wi§h the counier affidawt filed on behaif of respondents No.2 & 3, a report daied 31 .O?.2008 has been nled wherein it has boon categonoaiiy mentioned that on inapeotion and after conducting different tests, it wae found that i‘ne ohemioaie in i‘ne effluen‘i from respondent No.4 — induetry was within the permisei‘oie iimite. T'ne report further mentions that respondent No.4 u industry with a View to protect the environment in the area has piented as many es 60.0% trees. C51} The eetitioners, for the reaeons beet known to them, have not tiied any reioincier affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on Toehaif of respondents No.2 & 3 containing the above report dated 31312608, though a period of more than one year hae eiapsed since fiiing of the counter affidavit on hehaif of respondents No.2 & 3 on t5.12.2008.l it can, therefore, be eafeiy inferred that ,the eetitioner’s have nothing to say against the report dated V at .oggoe///” z \ \ ,t \ 6) En View 0f the contents of the repert dated 31.07.20i38, We are satisf§ed ihat n0 further monitoring 0f me matte? and issuance 0f smy dEreci’ian to respondants NM, 2 & 3 Haw, is {equired ‘7) The wrii peti€éon, therefore, is Eiable tc be d33m§$sed and is hsreby diwwiwed. 8) Security amount of Rs.5,000i~ deposited by th-a peiitioners be refunded ta the petitioners immediately. g) Ne Grdar as to ccsm ”’“f‘ g ‘ Sd/—: V , H < f SunilKumar Sinha 6‘ f ChiefJustice ¥ 7 2‘ subbu Judge n M‘,