RAJESHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA RAO Vs. GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a direction on the respondent no. 2 to initiate appropriate proceedings against the responsible officers of the respondent no. 1-Board for not performing their statutory duties under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. A direction is sought on the respondents for implementing the provisions of he Environment (Protection) Amendment Rules, 2001 and to prohibit all bricks manufacturers from manufacturing bricks by using moving chimney bull's trench kilns, as contemplated under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Amendment Rules, 2001. Further direction is sought on the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 37 of the Air Act, 1981 against defaulter manufacturers. The learned counsel for both the side are heard for final disposal of this petition.

(2.) It appears from the record that earlier, the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No. 668 of 2003, which came to be disposed of by order of the Division Bench made on 15th July, 2003, a copy of which is at Annexure:A to the petition. That petition was also filed for the reliefs similar to those which are prayed for in the present petition. In para-3 of the order made by the Court, several statements which were being made by the learned counsel for the respondent-Board from time to time have been referred, including the statement made on 27th June, 2003 on behalf of the Board that a decision to effect the closure was taken and notices under Section 31-A were issued against the defaulters. In para-4 of the order, statement made by the learned counsel for the Board was recorded to the effect that the Board had passed closure orders under Section 31-A of the Act against 89 units on 11.7.2002 and had informed the Collector, Godhra, for cancellation of the lease of these units with immediate effect. The Court therefore noticed that the Board had started taking action against the concerned units. It was observed that such action could have been initiated without waiting for the orders of the Court. It was also observed that the illegal running of trench kilns on the agricultural land was going on since more than six years as averred by the petitioner and nothing was done by the respondents even though they were vested with the powers under the Act to prevent air pollution. The Court observed that it was expected from the respondents and more particularly from the respondent no. 1-Gujarat Pollution Control Board to prevent using of moving chimneys on the agricultural fields which were discharging smoke that contained large amount of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide and other poisonous particles and dust particles. With these observations, the Court disposed of the petition on 15.7.2003.

(3.) It appears that thereafter it is only on 15th January, 2004 that notices were given by the Board (copy at Annexure:VI to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Board) in which defaulters were called upon under Section 31-A of the Air Act that they should immediately effect stoppage of the operation of the industrial plants mentioned therein till the fixed chimneys of adequate height and adequate air pollution control equipment are installed and efficiently operated and consent under the provisions of the Air Act,1987 is obtained. It was stated that if these directions were not complied forthwith, the noticee was liable for prosecution under section 37 of the Air Act which provided punishment with imprisonment of a term not less than one year and six months which could extend to six years with fine. We are told by the learned counsel for the Board that even after the issuance of the said notices dated 15.1.2004 to 541 units, not a single prosecution has been launched till today. Reasons which have been submitted for such omissions are hardly found to be convincing. However, in the file which was shown to us by the learned counsel appearing for the Board, admittedly no decision is recorded for prosecuting any particular unit pursuant to the notice dated 15.1.2004, though on 20th January, 2004, there was a noting made that as per advice of the advocate of the Board, filing of criminal cases under the Air Act was to be finalised. We may incidentally mention, since the original file was shown to us that, there are notings which show that the Regional Officers were not acting with responsibility. In the noting dated 24.11.2003, it was noted that the Regional Officer, Rajkot was not taking contents of the High Court order seriously as well as he was not aware of the responsibility entrusted by S.O. 763(E). Noting dated 17.1.2004 records that the R.O., Godhra was required to carry out inspection under the Act so as to take immediate action under the Act. Despite of all this, not a single prosecution appears to have been launched till now. It also appears from the file shown to us by the learned counsel of the Board that the Board had written a letter on 15th March, 2004 to the Regional Officer, Godhra which shows that inspection report made by him was wanting. Though we are not here pinpointing any particular lapse on the part of the officers concerned, the fact remains that there is inaction writ large on the part of the Board officers and though notices were issued to as many as 541 units, by the Board on 15th January, 2004, as stated by its learned counsel, requiring stoppage of operation of industrial plants which were violating the provisions of the Act, no decision to prosecute any particular unit has been taken so far.