DRISHTEE FOUNDATION Vs. BIHAR STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Government, faced with a situation where existing industries had closed down for one reason or the other and no industry was being set up in the State, came out with various allurements to the industrial sector countrywide inviting them to come to the State and set up industries. Apparently, the State realized that it is only industrialization that could lead to the development of the State. Various legislations were enacted in order to attract industries. Various promises were made and held out to industries but what happens in ground reality is illustrated by this case.

(2.) BIHAR Single Window Clearance Act, 2006 was enacted with the object of providing speedy processing, clearance and certificates required for setting up of industrial undertaking and for all round development of the State and industrial development and also to provide for an investor friendly environment in the State. This object was in furtherance of the object for speedy implementation of industrial projects by providing a single point of clearance to promoters and to ensure early commercial production of such projects.

(3.) THE petitioner Drishtee Foundation is a Non -Government Organization in the business of BPO (Business, Processing and Outsourcing). The main business of the petitioner is for establishing Community Development Centres for information and communication technology. As these centres are dependant on continuous and uninterrupted power supply which is one of the biggest hurdle for an entrepreneur in the State, they have to be backed by electric generating installations. Electric generating installations are of different types and one which has recently been developed and put to use are based on bio fuels with minimal or no pollution. They are environment friendly. Petitioner wanted to set up one such unit at Village -Saurath, Police Station -Rahika, District -Madhubani. As their investment was above Rs. 30,00,000/ -, they made application before the Nodal Agency which in their case was a Cell headed by the Director, Technical Industries Department, Government of Bihar. The Cell consists, inter alia, of the representative from various authorities and department of Government including the State Pollution Control Board. It would appear in the relevant meetings in which petitioner&aposs project was discussed, none other than the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board was himself personally present. At one point of time, when the case of petitioner&aposs industry was taken up for consideration by the said Cell, minutes whereof have been brought on record, it is recorded that some relevant papers are wanting and, as such, the matter in relation to petitioner was adjourned. What papers were missing or wanting is not noted. What objection or points were raised on behalf of Pollution Control Board is not noted though even in their counter affidavit, they have not stated as to any objection raised by them. In the next meeting which is dated 7.5.2007 which is the 42nd meeting, it is noted that papers having been made available by the petitioner, recommendations of various departments considered and it was decided that the opinion of Bihar Renewable Energy Development Agency (BREDA) should be obtained. Nowhere in this meeting any objection whatsoever from the State Pollution Control Board was raised nor noted even though once again the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board was personally present in the meeting and has signed the proceeding of those meetings. From this, it could be seen that so far as petitioner was concerned, he had discharged his obligation. Nothing was wanting at his end. Only opinion of BREDA was wanting. Shri Chitaranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ application stated at the Bar that BREDA also subsequently granted no objection which position is not contested by any party.