The Uttarakhand High Court has recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board to issue appropriate guidelines, suggestions for location of industries, especially stone crushers, in the state of Uttarakhand by exercising their powers under Environment Protection Act 1986 and rules there under.
The PIL filed by Anand Singh Negi and other has further seeks direction to the respondent authorities to not permit establishment of any stone crusher, stone crusher mineral stock in Village Sakkhanpur, Tehsil Ramnagar District Nainital on the strength of any permission to establish issued by the State Government or any other authority without there being any prior to consent to establish issued by the Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board after due inspection of the site in terms of provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 in favour of such establishment.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe while considering the PIL noted that the controversy between the parties at this stage is whether the State Government can issue a Letter of Intent prior to issuance of no objection certificate, consent to establish and consent to operate a polluting unit in the State of Uttarakhand by the State Pollution Control Board and, whether the order passed by the State Government on 22.06.2018 is in teeth of the provisions of law guiding the field specially the provisions of Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court directs appointment of man to post of constable
It is observed by the Bench that it is not disputed at this stage that these issues were before the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, as well as before the Supreme Court, though not by the present petitioner but on applications filed by some other villagers, and it is also not disputed at this stage that the Supreme Court as well as the National Green Tribunal has not interfered with the order passed by the State Government. Now, the issue relates to two questions.
Firstly, it is seen that Section 17 of both the Act (mentioned above) provides for functioning of the State Board. Clause (n) provides that the State Board shall advise the State Government with respect to the location of any industry to carry on of which is likely to pollute a stream, well, water or air. The general practise adopted in the State of Uttarakhand is whenever polluting unit one like a stone crusher is proposed to be established in a place then the aspirants shall apply to the State of Uttarakhand and the concerned department, shall, after following the procedure established by law shall issue a letter of intent.
The Court opined that the letter of intent is not properly worded as it has been reflected in the order that the private respondent has a license to establish and operate stone crusher for five years subject to certain conditions. However, it is brought to notice of the High Court that in the meantime, the State of Uttarakhand has changed its format and now they have specifically given the letter of intent with a condition that they shall before establishing and operating a stone crusher shall obtain consent to establish and consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board.
Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court says it can’t overlook eligibility conditions for tender
The High Court has carefully considered the argument of Dushyant Mainali, the counsel for the petitioner, and opined that the law does not prescribe that even before identifying any land or site for establishment of stone crusher, no objection certificate from the State Pollution Control Board is required. The no objection certificate in the shape of consent to establish and consent to operate is required before establishing and operating stone crushers. The State Government has an authority to give a letter of intent subject to the condition that project proponents shall obtain consent to establish and operate even prior to establishing an operating unit. So the Bench is of the considered view that this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable.
The second contention is regarding the wording of the letter of intent. It is brought to the notice by the Secretary, Industrial Development Department, that in the meantime the State of Uttarakhand has changed its format , and, therefore, there is no need to pass any mandamus against the State of Uttarakhand. The Secretary of the concerned department has explained the situation as prevailing at present.
It is therefore directed by the Court to the Secretary, Industrial Development Department, Government of Uttarakhand to re-issue the letter of intent.
Also Read: Supreme Court hears case for the early release of Perarivalan
Aditya Pratap Singh, the counsel for the State Pollution Control Board, submitted on instructions that the letter of consent to establish and consent to operate has been issued in favour of Private Respondent by the Pollution Control Board as per the order dated 26.07.2021 and it is valid upto 31.03.2023.
“In that view of the matter, there is no further issue that needs to be decided in this case. We do not find any further merit in the writ (PIL). The writ (PIL) is, therefore, dismissed,”
-order reads.