GAJANAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W .P.(PIL) No. 4572 of 2003 is filed by the petitioner therein claiming to be in public interest. The prayer therein is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 8 to ensure that no sewerage or affluent is drained into a public pathway in a residential area as was being done by respondent No. 9 carrying on the manufacture of soap polluting the environment. According to the petitioner, the Industry run by respondent No. 9 causes environmental pollution and the industry is run in violation of the Environment Protection Act, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. Respondent No. 9 the industry, resisted the application by pleading that the litigation was not a public interest litigation; that it was an engineered private interest litigation filed as a ruse to get over an order passed by the concerned Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the writ petition ought no to be entertained as a public interest litigation. On merits, it is contended that the industry was only a small scale industry and it was not really causing any pollution and there was no justification in preventing the industry from being run in the premises. The industry had come into existence first and the residential colony had developed around it thereafter and in this situation, the residents of the colony cannot complain of pollution, since the Court has also to consider integrated development while dealing with complaints of pollution.

(2.) THE State Pollution Control Board, which we are sorry to say, was remiss in performing its duties and in ensuring the enforcement of the Environment (Protection) Act, the Air Act and the Water Act and the Noise Pollution Control Rules, moved into action only upon the filing of this writ petition. The Pollution Control Board has now filed a counter affidavit stating that the Industry concerned run by respondent No. 9 has not obtained the requisite permissions under the Air Act and the Water Act and it was, in fact, causing pollution, it not having taken the required measures to control pollution and in view of this, respondent No. 9 was called upon to stop the running of the industry, but respondent No. 9 ignored the direction of the State Pollution Control Board and in the circumstances respondent No. 9 was liable to be prevented by this Court from running the industry in the premises in question. On behalf of the State Pollution Control Board, a grievance was voiced that even when the Pollution Control Board takes action under the Act and issues directions to the industries violating the Pollution Control norms and directs the stopping of their working until further orders, the authorities of the Government like the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, or officers under them, do not give any cooperation or help to the State Pollution Control Board and the Board is placed in a helpless position by not being able to enforce its orders and ensure a pollution free environment, or an environment with pollution kept under control and within the permissible limits. This grievance of the State Pollution Control Board cannot be ignored. Experience has shown that Deputy Commissioners and the Superintendents of Police of the various districts are either totally ignorant of the Environment protection laws, or have no idea of their duties and obligation to help the State Pollution Control Board in enforcing those laws and the need to protect the lives of citizens guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This ignorance or calousness of the Deputy Commissioners and Superintendents of Police of various districts in the State cannot be condemned too strongly. At least, now it is hoped that these authorities will wake up to their duties and responsibilities to ensure a clean environment, which is the right of every citizen, which these authorities as public servants, are expected to subserve. They also owe a duty to posterity. Incidentally, we may notice that even in the capital city of Ranchi, the concerned authorities do not even appear to be aware of the existence of the Noise Pollution Control Rules and the restrictions placed by these rules on the use of public address systems in the city.

(3.) MEANWHILE , respondent No. 9 in the above writ petition filed W.P.(C) No. 4167 of 2003 seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notices issued by the Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, calling upon respondent No. 9 to stop the working of the Industry. The challenge is essentially on the ground that the order in that behalf could be issued only by the Pollution Control Board in terms of Section 31 -A of the Air Act and the order having been issued by the Secretary to the Board, the same was without, authority. As regards the Water Act, it is contended that no permission was required in the circumstances of the case. This writ petition was also called up for being heard along with W.P. (PIL) No. 4572 of 2003 since the issues involved were intrinsically and inextricably inter -linked and called for an analogous consideration. The respondents therein resist this writ petition by pointing out that the petitioner therein, the polluting industry, has not complied with the requirements of the Air Act and the Water Act and especially in the context of the public interest litigation already filed in this Court and which is being heard analogously, there was no reason to grant any relief to the polluting industry in this writ petition. Thus, the dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for.