BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the public interest by some residents of villages Batamandi and Ganguwala questioning the legality and propriety of the expansion of the existing fermentation plant of respondent No. 4 at Ganguwala for manufacture of bulk drugs and setting up of a new formulation plant at Batamandi by respondent No. 4 M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited. The challenge is on various grounds. According to the petitioners, the respondents have violated various provisions of law. It is also alleged that the respondent No. 4 has not only violated the law but has started the construction without any legal and valid permission. According to the petitioners in case the plant is set up it shall cause huge amount of pollution leading to environmental degradation. During the course of the proceedings some Gram Panchayats of the area were permitted to join as interveners in the matter. When the petition was initially taken up for admission on 21st July, 2004 this Court had directed the respondent No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur to ensure that no unauthorized construction activity is carried on by respondent No. 4. The order dated 21.7.2004 reads as follows:

(2.) THEREAFTER , the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmour, swung into action. He filed an affidavit dated 20th August, 2004 before the Court in which it was stated that the respondent No. 4 had started the construction activity without obtaining necessary permission and in violation of Section 39 of the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the TCP Act). Accordingly the Deputy Commissioner ordered the stoppage of further construction. On 24.2.2005 the matter was listed before the Court and keeping in view the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner the respondents were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the expansion of the plant of respondent No. 4 at Ganguwala. The respondent No. 4 is the main contesting respondent and it filed reply submitting that writ has not been filed in the public interest. Respondent No. 4 claims that it had obtained all necessary permissions for setting up a new formulation project at Batamandi and for expansion of the fermentation plant at Ganguwala and that the said two plants were not causing any environmental degradation.

(3.) THE Committee was directed to ensure that the experts are co opted within two weeks and thereafter regular meetings of the Committee are held. The Committee was further directed to physically inspect the location, sites and areas. All authorities were required to give necessary assistance to the Committee. The Committee was also directed to hold 2 to 3 public hearings with a view to ascertaining the views of the public as well as respondent No. 4 M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories.