RAMANATH DAS Vs. COLLECTOR BALASORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been brought about by the inhabitants of village Dungura and its nearby villages situated in the district of Balasore by way of public interest litigation and raises some important questions concerning the true scope and ambit of environmental protection. The petitioners are aggrieved by the permission accorded by the Collector, Balasore to opposite party No. 6 for installing and operating a 'Stone Crusher Unit' within, according to the petitioners, a thickly populated village area, without taking note of the environmental hazards and consequential damage to the crops which may be caused due to installation and operation of the said Stone Crusher. The petitioners seek protection of life and livelihood of the inhabitants of the locality and pray for commanding the opposite party-authorities to cancel the permission so granted and to restrain opposite party No. 6 from establishing and operating the Stone Crusher Unit.

(2.) The petitioners have alleged in the writ application that the inhabitants of four Gram Panchayats mostly depend on agriculture. In or around the place, where permission is accorded to opposite party No. 6 to instal the Stone Crusher, a vast area of about 500 hects. of agricultural land is situated. These lands are highly fertile and the crops will be badly damaged if the dust particles coming out of the Crusher are permitted to accumulate on the agricultural field. Installation of the Crusher Unit by opposite party No. 6 will also cause air pollution leading to different diseases. The petitioners further allege that the authorities without observing the required paraphernalia and without sacrosanctly following the provisions of law, on the basis of certain reports submitted by the persons interested, accorded the permission. The Pollution Control Board, whose permission is mandatorily required to be obtained before installation of Crusher Units, has neither supervised the unit nor has accorded permission. It is also alleged that the villagers have submitted a representation before the Collector, Balasore ventilating their grievance, but unfortunately no action has been taken.

(3.) After receiving the Rule issued by this Court, a counter-affidavit has been filed by opposite parties 1 to 3, namely, the collector, Balasore; the Tahsildar, Soro and Block Development Officer, Khaira. A further counter-affidavit has also been filed by opposite party No. 6, in whose favour the permission to run the Crusher Unit has been accorded. The Chairman of the State Pollution Control Board has also filed a counter-affidavit. Opposite party No. 6, who is the main contestant in the case, strongly repudiated the allegations made in the writ application. It is specifically averred that before according permission, all necessary paraphernalia were sacrosanctly followed by opposite parties 1 to 4, inasmuch as they visited the place where the Crusher Unit was going to be established. They also conducted a survey and basing upon the report submitted by the revenue authorities as well as the field staff and after due application of mind and being satisfied that installation of the Crusher Unit at the location would not in any way cause any hindrance either to agricultural operation or health hazard to the local inhabitants, accorded necessary permission. It is submitted by opposite party No. 6 that after surveying the location which was fit for establishing the Stone Crusher, he purchased Ac. 0.81 decimals of land by registered documents from sthitiban Raiyat for the purpose of establishing the Stone Crusher on 2/02/2001. Thereafter he filed an application before the Collector. Balasore for according permission to instal the Crusher Unit. On 24/04/2001, a joint enquiry was conducted by the statutory authorities, i.e. The Tahsildar, Soro; Regional Officer I/c. of State Pollution Control Board, Bhubaneswar; Inspector of Factories and Boiler, Balasore and the Assistant Manager (SS), D.I.C., Balasore and the following facts revealed in the said enquiry:-