MAHABIR COKE INDUSTRY Vs. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-8-1996 passed by a learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 4827 of 1995. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants and directed them to close the operation of all the three units immediately till receipt of consent from the Pollution Control Board and to pay salaries and wages to employees and workmen.

(2.) The appellant No. 1 is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The firm established a coke manufacturing factory with three units. At the time of establishment of the factory the appellant firm requested the Pollution Control Board, Assam (for short, the Board) for consent under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 which was in force at that time. The said request was made in respect of the entire factory. Consentwas given by the Board. The Board used to give consent from time to timre as and when necessary. This state of affairs continued till the present Act i.e. the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force. As per Section 19 of the Act the State Government may, after consultation with the State Board, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare in such manner as may be prescribed, any area or areas within the State as air pollution control area or areas for the purposes of this Act. On 12th of May, 1993, the State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 19 of the Act, issued a notification declaring the whole of the State as air pollution control area. With the aforesaid notification all industries are required to follow the provisions of the Act. This Act provides various provisions for prevention and control of air pollution. With the coming into force of the said Act the appellant firm was required to obtain consent, but this was not done and accordingly, the respondent No. 1 Board issued notice to the appellant firm to explain why the consent of the Board as required under the Act was not obtained. The firm duly explained and also submitted application for consent by letter dated 14-8-1995. It may be pertinent to mention here that at the time when the Act came into force the appellant firm had its factory in existence. In other words, it was a going concern of manufacturing coke. By Annexure 3 letter dated 27-9-1995 and 2nd respondent directed closure of the appellant firm's unit communicating refusal of the Board to grant consent for operation of the Unit during the year 1995-96 on the ground that the unit of the appellant firm had been emitting black smokes and no preventive measures were taken for control of emission. This was, according to the Board, in complete violation of the provisions of the Act. In the said Annexure 3 communication it was also indicated that for the last two years the firm had failed to take any action to control emission level from the unit. The appellant firm was directed to close down its unit till implementation of anti-pollution measure and report compliance within 29th Sept. 1995. On receipt of the said Annexure-3 communication the appellant firm submitted a letter dated 29-9-1995 to the Member Secretary of the Board informing him that in so far as the two ovens (units) of the appellant firm were concerned, necessary anti-pollution devices had already been taken and for installation such devices in the third block, orders for materials etc. had already been placed. Along with the said letter copies of challans showing payment made for materials for installation of chimney in the third block were annexed. It was also stated by the appellant firm that they would be able to start the work of the third block within a short time and prayed for 6 months' time to complete the same. The appellant firm also requested the Board to revoke the direction given under Annexure-3 communication for closing down the untis of the appellant firm. On 17-10-1995, the Ist respondent Board informed the appellant firm that it had been allowed to operate the two blocks in respect of which anti-pollution devices had been installed with a direction to inform the Board about completion of installation of anti-pollution measures in respect of the third block. By yet another letter dated 1-11-1995 issued by the Member Secretary of the Board the appellant firm was informed that to study the effectiveness of the devices installed by the appellant firm air quality monitoring had been proposed in and around appellant firm's manufacturing unit from 2nd of Nov. onwards. Air quality monitoring was done by the Board on 2nd, 3rd and 4th of Nov. 1995. The Member Secretary of the Board, in purported exercise of the power under Section 31A of the Act, by Annexure 7 order dated 15-11-1995 directed the appellant firm to close down its manufacturing units and report compliance thereof to the Board within 18-11-1995. Against that Annexure-7 order dated 15-11-1995, the appellants filed the Civil Rule No. 4827 of 1995 challenging the validity and legality of the impugned order.On 21-11-1995 a single Bench of this Court directed to maintain status quo as on that date in respect of operation of the units of the appellant firm. This Court made it clear that the order of status quo would not apply to two renovated blocks operation of which had been allowed by the Board by order dated 17-10-1995. The order of status quo was again modified on a later date. Ultimately the case came up for final hearing and the learned single Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties passed the impugned judgment. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. R. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. A.H. Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 Board, Mr. H. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 and Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.