PREET KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Right from the year 2001, the State Government, as is depicted from its various policies, is of the view that a stone crushing unit should not be within 500 metres from a river. The word 'river' has been used in all its policies. The State is not only having rivers, but it has other water bodies. In the policies, there is no mention of these water bodies. The policy of the State must be understood in that background. While 500 metres distance is to be maintained, when there is existence of a river, but such distance is not required to be maintained, when the water body is a lake, is not acceptable. In the circumstances, the logical conclusion would be that the word 'river', used in the policy, denotes water bodies of importance to the people.

(2.) In the writ petition, filed in the nature of a public interest litigation by the villagers of Kharmasa and Pratappur, they have contended that the private Respondents are proposing to install a stone crushing unit at a place situated 100 metres away from river Bahela and 200 metres away from river/nala known as Pathri and about 350 metres away from an irrigation canal. It has been stated that river Bahela is the perennial source of water for the cultivators and source of drinking water for their animals. It has been stated that irrigation canal is also for cultivating their land.

(3.) The State Government filed a counter affidavit on 8.8.2006, where nothing was stated as regards the aforementioned contentions on the part of the writ Petitioners. Lateron the State Government filed yet another counter affidavit, where it was stated that river Bahela is approximately 100 metres away from the stone crusher, and a river/nala known as Pathri is adjacent to the site of the stone crusher. It was also stated that the irrigation canal is about 350 metres away from the site of the stone crusher. Despite having had stated so, it was contended that District Magistrate has rightly issued the 'No Objection Certificate' for establishment of the said stone crusher. With that it was added that the policy/guidelines issued by the State Government have no statutory force. In other words, since there was nothing to justify the 'No Objection' given for establishment of the said stone crushing unit, and despite the 'No Objection' being contrary to the policy of the Government, it was contended in the said affidavit that the policy has no statutory force, meaning thereby the same can be avoided at the sweet will of the officers of the State.