GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Vs. PARMAR DEVUSINH SHERSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Challenge is made in the Special Civil Application filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution to the order dated 24th May, 1998 of the Appellate Authority constituted under Sec. 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, in Appeal No. 17 of 1986. The appeal is filed by the respondent No. 1 and under the impugned order, same was held to be maintainable. The objection raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the appeal was came to be disallowed under this impugned order.

(2.) . The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has no locus standi to file the appeal before the Appellate Autliority. It is a grievance of the respondent No. 1 before the Appellate Authority that the consent order passed by the petitioner in respect of the respondent No. 2-Industry will adversely affect the petitioner and other persons of the area and he has right of appeal. It is true that respondent No. 1 was not a party to the consent order, but in case that order adversely affects the petitioner, certainly, the appeal is maintainable. He was not a party to the order impugned before the pellate Authority and copy of the same was not required to be sent to him. But, merely because he was not a party or that the copy of the order was not sent to respondent No. 1, is hardly any ground to disallow him from filing of the appeal. This is a matter of pollution control and all the affected persons can file an appeal under Sec. 28 of the Act, which is very specific and dear. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Board under Sec. 25, Sec. 26 or Sec. 27, has a right of appeal. It is not the case of the petitioner that the order which has been challenged by respondent No. 1 before the Appellate Authority does not fall under any of the provisions of Secs. 25, 26 or 27 of the Act. The water and air pollution arc really a serious problems in the country and it is not unknown that the Courts are taking these matters very seriously. Public interest litigations are being filed in the Court in many of the matters where there is endanger of water or air pollution by installation of industry. If this is the position then, I fail to see in case the respondent No. 1 has gone to the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal, how he could have been deprived of his right of pollution free air and water.

(3.) . A person who was not a party to the order has a right of appeal to the Appellate Authority though with the leave of the Appellate Authority, where the impugned order adversely affects him. This position of law is well settled. The petitioner, in case, is aggrieved of the order of the Board, an appeal is permissible with the leave of the Appellate Authority. Here the Appellate Authority has entertained the appeal and objection raised by the petitioner regarding its maintainability thereof has been turned down. In view of this legal position, the petitioner has no case whatsoever.