KALYANI INDUSTRIES GOLAPUR V HANAMKONDA MANDAL WARANGAL DIST Vs. GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE WARANGAL DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the author of all these three petitions. They involve common questions of law and facts. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (for short 'Board') is the 3rd respondent in WP No.4501/95, and 1st respondent in WP 118/ 96. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Warangal is the 1st respondent in WP No.4501/95. The Vice Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal is the 1st respondent in WP No.7700/95. The Superintending Engineer, A.P. State Electricity Board, Warangal is the 2nd respondent in WP No.7700/95 and WP 118/96. The Gopalpur Gram Panchayat is the 2nd respondent in WP No.4501/95 and 3rd respondent in WP 118/96. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, is 4th respondent. The Environmental Engineer, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Warangal is 5th respondent, respondents 6 to 14 are private individuals and respondent No. 15 is the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Gopalpur in WP No.4501/95.

(2.) The facts and circumstances and the controversies leading to these writ petitions require a brief record. Sri K. Sadasivudu is the Managing Partner of the petitioner indusny M/s. Kalyani Industries, Gopalpur. It is said to be a small scale industry for manufacturing cement, hollow bricks. An application was submitted in the month of August, 1992 showing two sites one at Hasanpartny and the other one at Sy.No. 122, Gopalpur village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District to locate and construct the factory of the petitioner, to the General Manager, District Industries Centre. After inspection by its officials, the site was changed from Hasanparthy to Sy.No. 122, Gopalpur under the proceedings dated 12-11-1993 as it is suitable for establishment of the industry. An application was also made to the Gram Panchayat, Gopalpur alongwith a map seeking permission to construct the building for the industry. Accordingly it was accorded on 28-10-1993. An application was made to the Board for permission as required. The District Medical and Health Officer, Warangal after an inspection issued no objection certificate in letter dated 7-4-1994 to the petitioner to locate the industry in Sy.No. 122 of Gopalpur village. The Board also accorded permission by its letter dated 6-6-1994 for setting up the industry at the said place. The Inspector of factories, Warangal also made inspection of the site and approved the plan. The petitioner has pleaded that after gelling approval from all the concerned authorities, the construction of the building for the industry was completed and the production was commenced. It is further pleaded that manufacture of cement hollow bricks does not cause any air, water or noise pollution. It is situaled in a place which is surrounded by M/s. Solvent Extracts Ltd. and other industries. There are agricultural lands abutting the industries. The officials of the Board again inspected the site and directed the petitioner to construct a wall around the machine to prevent the noise pollution and accordingly the wall was constructed. Thus, the petitioner was manufacturing cement hollow bricks in the industry till the impugned order has been issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre requesting the petitioner to shift the industry from the present place to any other place within three months in the letter No. A4/ 3724/94, dated 7-2-1995 in view of the orders of the Commissioner of Industries, Hyderabad. It is contended that before passing the impugned order, no notice or personal hearing was given to the petitioner, it is against the principles of natural justice and against its own permission accorded as alleged. The petitioner had invested Rs.8 lakhs in setting up the industry by raising loans from A.P. State Financial Corporation and others and had commenced production after obtaining approval from all the authorities and without causing any pollution of any kind in addition to the approval having been obtained from the Board. It is also contended that even under the provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act, it is permissible to run industries from 9.00 am to 5.00 p.m. and the industry was being run within the specified timings. It is further contended that the impugned order is passed without cogent reasons, it is illegal, arbitrary and has put the petitioner irreperable loss and hardship and therefore, the impugned order is sought to be quashed.

(3.) While the matter stood this way, the Vice Chairman of the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority issued a show cause notice dated 29-12-1994 to the petitioner calling upon to explain as to why the industry should not be shifted to some other place. To this show cause notice explanation was submitted on 17-1-1995 by the petitioner. Therein the petitioner explained the procedure he followed in getting the necessary permission from various departments and the authorities and the commencement of the industry manufacturing the cement hollow bricks. But the authority issued the impugned proceedings dated 8-3-1995 in Rc.No.02/1523/94 calling upon the petitioner to demolish the construction of the factory and the industry. It is contended that the authority had no jurisdiction or power to pass the impugned orders much less the Superintending Engineer, APSEB had no jurisdiction to disconnect the electricity on the basis of such proceedings, particularly when WP No.4501/95 was pending and an interim order has been passed in that proceedings by this Court. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the Urban Development Authority has been sought to be quashed. Although the Board had permitted the petitioner to commence the industry and to carry on the production of the bricks after inspection and although the petitioner had obtained permission from fee various authorities as detailed above, the Board issued the impugned proceedings in No.55014/PCB/ AEE-II/95-116, dated 4-1-1996 alleging that the petitioner was operating the unit in contravention to the directions issued under Section 31(A) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987 (for short 'the Air Act'), that the industry must be closed for violating the conditions imposed that the petitioner would be liable for prosecution in case the order was not obeyed and that the APSEB had been directed to disconnect the electricity connection to the industry and the impugned order would come into effect from 4-1-1996. The petitioner has contended that when the Board had given such a permission however, imposing the conditions which had been complied with by the petitioner, particularly when there was no pollution of any kind including the sound pollution, the Board had no authority or reason to issue such directions in the impugned proceedings. Particularly when the two other writ petitions were pending consideration in this Court and same interim orders were passed, the impugned proceedings were violative of such orders and repugnant to the questions to be decided by the Court in the said writ petitions. It is also pointed out that in the nature of the unit with electric motor of 7.5 HP, the operation did not produce any pollution of either air or sound. The impugned order is thus sought to be quashed as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.