SHARANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Government of Punjab, Department of Science, Technology, Environment and Non-Conventional Energy, have by an order dated 11.09.2006, stipulated the norms for setting up of new Rice Shellers and Saila plants in the State of Punjab in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Department of Environment, Forest and Wild Life Notification No. S.O. 289(E) dated 14th April, 1988 and Rule 4 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1988. The need for issuing the said order and fixing of norms and standards arose because in the opinion of the Government, the Rice Shellers and Saila Plants in the State of Punjab were causing air pollution affecting human health apart from being a traffic hazard. The Appellate Authority constituted by the State Government under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, also appears to have issued directions to the Punjab Pollution Control Board to review the siting criteria to abate air pollution created by such units. The Board has, pursuant to the directions recommended siting guidelines and emission standards to be followed in respect of such units. The order issued by the State Government was largely in compliance with the said legal requirements and directions/recommendations intended primarily to reduce air pollution and traffic hazards arising out of setting up of such units at places not suited for the same.

(2.) APART from other requirements stipulated by the Government in the said order, one of the requirements which the Government stipulated, was that the Rice Shellers and Saila Plants shall be 500 meters away from the bye-pass, National Highway, State Highway or a scheduled road and that the same shall also not be within 500 meters from the village Lal Dora/Phirni, Wild Life Sanctuary, residential area, educational institution, historical and religious places and protected monuments.

(3.) IT is common ground that respondent No. 7 had approached the Punjab Pollution Control Board on 16.05.2007 seeking a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Board under Section 21 of the Air Act for setting up of the proposed sheller at the location mentioned above. The Punjab Pollution Control Board had forwarded the said request to the Department of Town and Country Planning, Punjab, for verification whether the site for setting up of the proposed sheller was meeting the siting guidelines stipulated in terms of the Government order mentioned earlier. In response to the said letter, District Town Planner, Fatehgarh Sahib, addressed a letter dated 30.05.2007 to the Senior Town Planner, SAS Nagar, Mohali, inter-alia, stating that according to the site report, the proposed site abuts 22 feet wide link road leading to village Nalini and 300 feet away from Sirhind-Patiala Scheduled Road No. 31. Having said so, the District Town Planner certified that the proposed site meets the siting guidelines stipulated by the Government. On receipt of the said recommendation from the District Town Planner, the Senior Town Planner forwarded the same to the District Town Planner, Fatehgarh Sahib, who in turn by a letter of even date, forwarded the recommendation to the Environment Engineer, Punjab Pollution Control Board. In the meantime, Punjab Pollution Control Board had received a complaint on 06.08.2007 to the effect that the proposed rice sheller does not comply with the siting guidelines issued by the Government. This complaint was, it appears, forwarded by the Punjab Pollution Control Board to the District Town Planner who by a letter dated 8.8.2007 acknowledged the fact that the site in question did not actually meet the siting guidelines and accordingly withdrew the earlier recommendations. On receipt of the said communication from the District Town Planner, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab Pollution Control Board, appears to have issued a notice dated 24.09.2007 asking respondent No. 7 to show cause why the application made by respondent No. 7 for consent, be not rejected as the proposed site did not meet the siting guidelines. In response to the said notice, respondent No. 7 sent a reply dated 26.09.2007, inter-alia, stating that the unit had already purchased land worth Rs. 21.50 lacs and made investment of over Rs. 71.20 lacs on building and installation of machinery apart from Rs. 20 lacs on miscellaneous working. Punjab Pollution Control Board did not verify the said assertions and instead forwarded the same to the Secretary to the Government by its letter dated 27.09.2007. On receipt of the said communication, the Government noticed the wrong reporting by the District Town Planner, leading to substantial investment by the investors, and recommended action by the Housing Department against the defaulting officer. All the same the present Rice Sheller was allowed to be set up in relaxation of the siting guidelines, subject to the ultimate decision of the present writ petition That is precisely how the Rice Sheller came to be set up by respondent No. 7 and the legality of the permission granted for the same questioned before us in these proceedings.