BABUL KUMAR BANIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. K. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, who is the licensee to operate Saw Mill in the notified industrial estate, has urged this court to set aside the order dated 06.06.2019 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition). Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner had set up his Saw Mill on the leasehold land within the notified industrial estate for the wood based industries. The Chief Conservator of Forest by the letter dated 01.03.2006 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) had asked the petitioner to shift his saw mill which was at that time beyond the notified area, to the notified industrial estate for the wood-based industries. For purpose of shifting, he had entered into a lease with one M/s Fortuna Greenfields Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, on 21.01.2019, a notice was issued on Bijoy Kumar Agarwal, the Director of the Fortuna Greenfield Pvt. Ltd. asking him to show cause why action shall not be taken against them for operating the said unit without valid consent as conferred under sections 25 and 26 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Since the reply to the said show cause notice dated 21.01.2019 was not given, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kailashahar, the respondent No.2 in this proceeding, had drawn up a proceeding under Section 133 for creating public nuisance.

(3.) The petitioner had informed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that since he was unwell, he may be provided 30 days' accommodation. Despite that, on 28.03.2019, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the Officer-in-charge of the police station on that area to file an FIR under Section 188 of the IPC on the ground that the petitioner had not been following the pollution regulation and refused to give reply to the show cause notice given by the Pollution Control Board within due time. Inspector of Factories also by his communication dated 08.05.2019 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) had apprised the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (the respondent No. 2 herein) that during the last inspection conducted by him, some deficiencies in safety measures were located by him and those deficiencies were brought to the notice of the manager of the Saw Mill. The manager of the Saw Mill had, however, intimated that the deficiencies have been removed in compliance of direction of the Inspector of Factories.