Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Judgment reserved on 19.10.2010 Judgment delivered on 26.11.2010 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33870 of 2010 M/s Manoj Mini Rice Mill & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon. Kashi Nath Pandey, J.
We have heard Shri V.K. Singh assisted by Shri G.K. Malviya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for State respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri C.K. Parekh appears for Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur. Shri P.C. Shukla has entered appearance for U.P. Pollution Control Board. Notices were issued to the private respondents.
M/s Manoj Mini Rice Mill is a proprietorship firm of which Shri Dinesh Chand is the proprietor. The firm is running a mini rice mill in the name and style of M/s Manoj Mini Rice Mill at Angarh Mahaveer Road, Mirzapur under a license dated 10.1.1990 issued by the Licensing Authority under the Rice Milling Industries Regulation Act, 1958. The firm also has a license for sale and purchase of paddy and rice under the U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Licensing and Restriction of Holding) Order, 1999, and a license as manufacturer-trader under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhniyam, 1964.
The petitioner claims that the mini rice plant is running at the same site, for last 22 years with no material alteration or new construction with the help of 15 HP electricity motor. The mill is admittedly situate in a residential area for which the petitioner has not taken any permission from the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur or the U.P. Pollution Control Board. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 22/23.4.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur in pursuance to the order passed by Dr. C.S. Bhatt, Principal Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board dated 1.3.2006 directing the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad to seal the rice mill. The District Magistrate has stated in the order that inspite of directions issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. dated 10th October, 2003 and the orders of the Pollution Control Board dated 1.3.2006 the petitioner has not stopped running the industry in a residential area. The High Court has directed the U.P. Pollution Control Board to file counter affidavit in Writ Petition No.15432 of 2010. The Regional Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Sonbhadra has requested to seal M/s Manoj Mini Rice Mill in public interest as the mill is situate in a residential area and is causing air pollution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice of the Writ Petition No.15432 of 2010, filed by Smt. Indira Singh, in public interest has not been served upon him. The order of closure has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner has also not been given copy of the order in Smt. Mithilesh Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Petition No.34957 of 2003), relied upon in the writ petition. He has obtained a response from the High Court that the said writ petition (Writ Petition No.34957 of 2003) was dismissed for want of prosecution on 22.9.2003. The petitioner's business license is still valid. He has not violated any of the terms and conditions of such license. The orders dated 13.8.2003 and 10.10.2003 passed by the Pollution Control Board have been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. Smt. Indira Singh has no locus or authority to represent other persons of the locality to initiate action to contain pollution.
Shri V.K. Singh submits that no Rules have been framed under Section 54 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (In short the Air Pollution Act, 1981) and no notice has been given to the petitioner under Section 31-A of the Act to close down, prohibit or regulate any industry. Shri Singh submits that the notification declaring the subject area as the area for control of air pollution has also not been made and notified by the State Government under Section 19 of the Act. He submits that no survey has been carried out of any pollution. The petitioner is running the mill strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of his business license. In the absence of notification under Section 19 the petitioner was not required to obtain the consent of the Board, and thus the appellate provisions under the Air Pollution Act, 1981 are, therefore, not attracted.
In the counter affidavit of Shri Pankaj Yadav, Asstt. Engineer, Environment and U.P. Pollution Control Board, Distt. Sonebhadra, it is stated that M/s Manoj Mini Rice Mill was inspected on 7.1.2006. At the time of inspection it was found that the industry is engaged in production of 2.5 metric tonne of rice per day by way of husking and polishing rice by a manufacturing process. The rice husk and rice bran are generated in the process as bye-product. The industry has installed 20 HP electric motor and has also installed 20 KVA diesel generating set for alternate electric supply. At the time of inspection the representatives of the industry told that the DG set is out of order for last 2 to 3 years. The industry has not installed pollution control device to check the emission of dust. Due to dust emissions from the mill the nearby areas are affected. The rice mill is situate in a residential area, and is causing noise/ air pollution affecting the residents of the area. The petitioner was required to obtain previous consent of the Board under Section 21 of the Air Pollution Act, 1981, the failure to comply with the orders invite punishment under Section 37 of the Act.
It is stated in para 12 of the affidavit that the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. issued an order on 10.10.2003 for complying with the rules of master plan, to all the concerned authorities and that is why the order dated 13.8.2003 and 10.10.2003 were addressed to the concerned authorities and not to the rice mill. The District Magistrate on the request of the Board directed the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad to close down illegal activities of the rice mill situate in the residential area. In para 15 it is stated that the rice mill is being run against the provisions of the Rules and master plan and in violation of the provisions of the Air Pollution Act, 1981. The petitioner had represented to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad for permitting him to run the mill. In para 16 it is stated that in Mithilesh Jain Vs. State of U.P., Writ Petition No.34957 of 2003 the High Court issued directions as follows:-
"Standing counsel and Shri Pankaj Mittal may file counter-affidavit within three weeks.
Issue notice to respondent No.4 returnable at an early date.
The point raised in this writ petition is of great importance through out the State of U.P. and perhaps in many other States as well. The grievance of the petitioner is that commercial activities are being permitted in the residential area of Agra.
We have had occasion to deal with such kinds of complaints in earlier petitions which came up before us. For example in R.K. Mittal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2002 (1) AWC 558: 2002 (1) UPLBEC 444, we have held that no commercial and industrial activity can be carried out in the areas earmarked for residential purpose in the NOIDA Master Plan. We are informed that in a large number of cities e.g. Lucknow, Agra, Kanpur, etc., commercial and industrial activities are being carried on in the areas earmarked for residential purposes in the Master Plan of that city. In our opinion, this is wholly illegal. The rules have to be followed, otherwise the rule of law will collapse in the country. If there are rules, they must be obeyed, otherwise the rule should be scrapped. We have held in R.K. Mittal Vs. State of U.P. (Supra) that there is a widespread malady which has inflected our society, namely, that the people who are having money and power think that they are above the law. This notion is totally destructive of the Rule of the Law and can no longer be tolerated by this Court. Everyone is under the law.
In the present petition, it has been stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 that in the residential area, a shopping complex is being constructed and other commercial activities are proposed. In our opinion, this is clearly illegal. We, therefore, direct that no commercial or industrial activity will be allowed to be carried on in the area earmarked for residential purpose in the Master Plan of Agra or of in any other city in U.P. If commercial and industrial activities are being carried on in any city in U.P. in the areas earmarked for residential purposes in the Master Plan of that city, such activity must immediately be stopped by the authorities.
Although this petition was only regarding Agra city, we have decided to extend its scope suo motu to other cities in U.P. because we are informed that similar illegalities are being committed there too.
Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the Chief Secretary, U.P. forthwith who will ensure compliance of this order. Learned standing counsel shall also send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, U.P.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned standing counsel today free of charges."
It is further stated in para 17 of the counter affidavit of Shri Pankaj Yadav that interim mandamus issued by the High Court still holds good unless same is recalled by the Court. The District Magistrate has relied upon the directions issued by the Chief Secretary dated 10.10.2003, and the order dated 1.3.2006 by the Principal Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board. Lastly it is stated in para 24 that under Section 31 of the Air Pollution Act, 1981 an appeal is provided against the order of the State Pollution Control Board to such authority, termed as appellate authority in Section 31, which the State Government may think fit to constitute.
In the counter affidavit of Shri Virendra Kumar Srivastava, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur, it is stated in para 9 that the letter was written by the Regional Officer of the U.P. Pollution Control Board, Distt. Sonbhadra to Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur to close the rice mill of the petitioner. The matter of license is subject to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, and the Control Orders. The Nagar Palika has no authority to act under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. The Nagar Palika Parishad does not have any control over the petitioner's rice mill either directly or indirectly. It has started prosecution of the petitioner under Section 245 of the Municipalities Act by the limited jurisdiction given to Nagar Palika Parishad. Section 245 of the U.P. Municipalities Act provides regulation of offensive trades as below:-
"245. Regulation of offensive trades (1) it is shown to the satisfaction of a Municipality that any building or place within the limits of the municipal area which any person uses or intends to use as a factory or other peace of business for the manufacture, storage, treatment or disposal of any article, by reason of such use, or by reason of such intended use, occasions or is likely to occasion a public nuisance, the Municipality may at its option require by notice the owner or occupier of the building or place-
(a) to desist or refrain, as the case may be, from using, or allowing to be used, the building or place for such purpose, or
(b) only to use, or allow to be used, the building or place for such purposes under such conditions or alter such structural alterations as the Municipality imposes or prescribes in the notice with the object rendering the use of the building or place fro such purposes free from objection.
prescribes in the notice with the object rendering the use of the building or place for such purposes free from objection.
(2) Whoever, after receiving a notice given under sub-section (1) uses or allows to be used any building or place in contravention of the notice shall be liable on conviction to a fine which may extend to two hundred rupees and to a further fine which may extend to forty rupees for every day on which he so uses or allows to be used the place of building after the date of first conviction.
(3) the State Government may, by notification, make the provisions of this section, or of any bye-law made under Heading G of Section 298, applicable to any area beyond the municipal area lying within a distance of a mile from the boundary."
Shri C.K. Parekh appearing for Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur submits that the order of the Executive Officer dated 27.12.2005 by way of notice addressed to M/s Manoj Mini Rice Mill was based on the complaint of Smt. Indira Singh, to the Hon'ble Minister, Environment, Government of U.P. dated 15.12.2005 and the report of the Inspector dated 27.12.2005, that the running of the mill is causing adverse effects on the health of the residents of the locality. The mill is being operated without taking any permission. The running of the mill is causing nuisance to the residents of the locality and that their children often fall ill on account of pollution caused by it. A Criminal Complaint No.388 of 2006 filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur between State Vs. Manoj Rice Mill under Section 245 of the U.P. Municipalities Act is still pending.
Shri Shukrama Prasad Vishwakarma, Tehsildar (Judicial) Sadar, Distt. Mirzapur has also filed an affidavit reiterating the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition NO.34957 of 2003 and Writ Petition NO.15432 of 2010 by Smt. Indira Singh Vs. State of U.P. In pursuance to the order in Mithilesh Jain's case, the Chief Secretary had issued orders to stop the industries in residential areas and in the light of the said order the petitioner has no authority to run the rice mill in thickly populated residential area.
Shri P.C. Shukla has produced a copy of the notification issued under Section 19 (1) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1991 declaring the whole of the State of U.P. as Air Pollution Control Area. The notification is quoted as below:-
"[38] English translation of Paryawaran Anubhag Noti.No.4507/55-2000-164 (Parya)-94, dated November 3, 2000, published in the U.P. Gazette, Extra, Part 4, Section (Kha), dated 3rd November, 2000, p-2 In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Act No.14 of 1981) and in supersession of notification issued in this regard, the Governor, after consultation with the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board is pleased to declare, with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Gazette, whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh as Air Pollution Control Area."
It is not denied that the petitioner is running mini rice mill in a residential area. The proprietor of the mill has not denied that the mill was inspected on 7.1.2006, and was found running with 2.5 metric tonne per day production capacity for husking and polishing for manufacturing process for which he has installed 20 HP electric motor. It has also not denied that there are emission of dust, for which no measure has been taken for installing any air pollution control system. The mill has not applied or obtained the consent of the U.P. Pollution Control Board under Section 21 of the Air Pollution Act, 1981.
The contention of Shri V.K. Singh that the petitioner has been taken by surprise and that no show cause notice was issued is not substantiated on record. The material produced in the counter affidavit shows that after the inspection dated 7.1.2006 the petitioner was issued a notice by the Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur on 27.12.2005. An inspection was caused on a complaint made by Smt. Indira Singh, a resident of the same locality on 15.12.2005 to the Hon'ble Minister, Environment, Government of U.P. A criminal case No.388 of 2006 under Section 245 of the U.P. Municipalities Act is pending against the petitioner in which dates are being fixed. The firm has also not denied the knowledge of the orders passed by this Court in Smt. Mithilesh Jain Vs. State of U.P. to close down the industries running in residential areas contrary to the master plan and building bye-laws. The district of Mirzapur situated in the State of U.P. is included in the regulated area in which industrial activity cannot be carried out in residential colonies. The Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. has issued directions to stop the industrial activity in residential colonies in compliance of the mandamus issued in Mithilesh Jain's case as long ago on 10.10.2003.
In Orissa State (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Board Vs. Orient Paper Mills & Anr., (2003) 10 SCC 421 the Supreme Court held that even if the Rules under Section 54 of the Act have not been framed, which enumerates the subjects on which the State Government is entitled to frame rules, the power which vests in the authority for issuing notification under Section 19 (1) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 does not cease to exist. The non-framing of the Rules does not curtail the powers of the State Government to declare any area as Air Pollution Control Area by means of notification published in the official gazette.
In Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Association Vs. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 737 the Supreme Court considering the question of water pollution by the dyeing industries, relying upon the precautionary principles accepted as part of law of the land and the environmental law of the counter in Vellor Citizens' Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 and further explained in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118, observed:-
"requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment."
The Supreme Court, thereafter, observed in paragraphs 26 and 27 as follows:-
"26. The concept of "sustainable development" has been explained that it covers the development that meets the needs of the person without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs. It means the development, that can take place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation. Therefore, in such matters, the required standard is that the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in public interest, according to a "reasonable person's" test. The development of the industries, irrigation resources and power projects are necessary to improve employment opportunities and generations of revenue; therefore, cannot be ignored. In such eventuality, a balance has to be struck, for the reason that if the activity is allowed to go, there may be irreparable damage to the environment and there may be irreparable damage to the economic interest. A Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in T.N. Godavaram Thirumulpad (104) vs. U.O.I. & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 222; and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 142.
27. In case in spite of stringent conditions, degradation of environment continues and reaches a stage of no return, the court may consider the closure of industrial activities in areas where there is such a risk. The authorities also have to take into consideration the macro effect of wide scale land and environmental degradation caused by absence of remedial measures. The right to information and community participation for protection of environment and human health is also a right which flows from Article 21 (vide Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others; AIR 2006 SC 1489; T.N. Godavaram Thirumulpad vs. UOI and Others (2002) 10 SCC 606; Research Foundation for Science Technology Natural Resource Policy vs. UOI & Ors (2005) 10 SCC 510; N.D. Jayal & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 867; M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath AIR 2002 SC 1515; Mrs. Susetha vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2893)."
The license issued to the petitioner under the Rice Mill Industrial Regulation Act is business license for running rice mill; the license under the U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Licensing and Restrictions of Storage) Order, 1989 made under the Essential Commodities Act is issued for storage and sale of paddy and rice and the license under the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 is a license for doing manufacturing and trading business in market area, which includes permission to purchase paddy and sell rice and for payment of market fees. These business licenses do not take care of the rights of the general public, protected under the Air Pollution Act, 1981 for living in a non-polluted environment. After the notification of the whole of the State of U.P. dated 3rd November, 2000 under Section 19 (1) of the Air Pollution Act, 1981 the petitioner was required to obtain permission of the U.P. Pollution Control Board under Section 21 of the Act. The consent of the Board after the notification is issued, is mandatory condition in State of U.P. for operating the industry. It is only after an application is made for consent that the U.P. Pollution Control Board may carry out inspections and direct the industry to ensure such measures, which may prevent air pollution in the area.
In the present case the license for running the industry under the Rice Milling Regulation Act was issued in the year 1993. The petitioner may have established the mill in an area, which was not thickly populated, but that as soon as the building activity started in the area and that large number of residents started living, it was necessary under the Air Pollution Act, 1981 for the industry, after the notification dated 3rd November, 2000 under the Act to obtain consent of the U.P. Pollution Control Board. No industry is permitted to be run in the State after 3rd November, 2000 without taking consent of the U.P. Pollution Control Board. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 provides for penalties for prosecution, for the industry violating the provisions of the Act, as well as the order to stop the industry under Section 31A of the Act.
The Pollution Control Board has authority under Section 31A of the Act of 1981 to direct any person or authority including closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, and can also issue directives for the stop or regulation of supply of electricity, water or other services. Section 31A of the Act of 1981 is quoted as below:-
"31-A. Power to give directions- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, but subject to the provisions of this Act and to any directions that the Central Government may give in this behalf a Board may, in the exercise of its powers and performance of tis functions under this Act, issue any directions in writing to any person, officer or authority, and such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply with such directions.
Explanation- For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power to issue directions under this section includes the power to direct-
(a) the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process; or
(b) the stoppage or regulation of supply of electricity, water or any other service."
Section 31A inserted in the Act of 1981 by Act 47 of 1987 w.e.f. 1.4.1988 provides for emergency measures of closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry and the directions to stop or regulation of power of electricity, water and other services by the Board for exercise of powers and performance of its functions. These extreme measures can be adopted by the Board, on the precautionary principles, accepted as environmental law of the country with reference to Art.47 (48A); 51-A (G) declared in Vellor Citizens Welfare Forum (Supra). The precautionary principle for preventing an anticipated environmental damage has been accepted as part of sustainable development principle under the People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 433; A.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718; M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, (2009) 6 SCC 142 and M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118.
Where after receiving any complaint or any report and after causing an inspection to verify the pollution beyond permission limits, the Board is prima facie of the opinion that the running of the industry is causing pollution, which is detrimental to the environment and is dangerous to public health, the Board can exercise powers under Section 31A by issuing directions contemplated therein. These emergency measures must, however, be supported with cogent and relevant material on which the Board forms the opinion of causing pollution. The damage to environment should be such, which is actually causing or is likely to cause harm to public health, on which such directions are unavoidable. The directions in such case should be such, which may be necessary to avoid the damage to environment, and fulfills the object of enactment of the Act of 1981, and which cannot wait for the time to be spent in giving a notice and opportunity of hearing.
In such cases it is always open to such alleged pollutant to satisfy the Board, if consent has been taken for running the industry; that the conditions of consent have not been misused and/ or that the allegations of causing pollution are not correct. If the consent for running the scheduled industry has not been taken, the person running the industry will have a much weaker case to be presented before the Board for recalling the order. It is also open to such industry causing the alleged pollution to obtain the requisite consent after fulfilling the norms and complying with the conditions put by the Board, or to satisfy the Board that the material collected at the time of inspection or otherwise, is not sufficient to arrive at the satisfaction that the industrial activity is causing pollution beyond permissible limits and to be given reasonable time to apply for consent. The orders passed on such representation are appellable under Section 31 of the Act.
In the present case, we are satisfied that on the basis of the material available with the Board, on the inspection made in the year 2005 by the Health Inspector dated 26.12.2005, and the inspection made on 7.1.2006 by the officer authorised by the U.P. Pollution Control Board, that the industry was engaged in production of rice with the help of 20 HP electric motor, and that due to the operation of the industry and emission of dust, the residents of the area were affected.
The petitioner has not denied that the industry is causing dust emissions. The objections taken in the writ petition to the impugned order, are confined only to the observance of the principle of natural justice.
We find it appropriate to observe here that though in this case the ground of violation of principles of natural justice is not available to the petitioner, as the petitioner was aware of inspection and notice and had not obtained consent of the U.P. Pollution Control Board under Section 21 of the Act after the notification under Section 19 (1) of the act dated 3rd November, 2000. Even otherwise, on the precautionary principle accepted by the Supreme Court as environmental law of the land on the facts of the case, no such notice as pre-condition of taking action under Section 31A was required to be given. There was sufficient material with the U.P. Pollution Control Board that the industry run by the petitioner is situate in the residential area and is causing pollution, and further that the petitioner has not applied and obtained consent of the U.P. Pollution Control Board.
In M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 327 and M.C. Mehta Vs. Uion of India, (1999) 2 SCC 91, the Supreme Court on compliance of the directions of relocating the polluting industry outside Delhi gave directions for providing retrenchment compensation under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, to workmen and treating the period between closure and restarting industry at the place of relocation, to be in active employment and for payment of shifting bonus, to the workmen of relocating industries. In SIEL Foods and Fertilizer Industries Vs. Union of India, (2010) 5 SCC 169, the Supreme Court on the shifting and relocation of hazardous, noxious, heavy large industries, outside the city, as required by Master plan, upheld the owner's entitlement to one and half time permission of FAR under master plan in lieu of monetary compensation.
Apart from the breach of the provisions of the Act of 1981, the petitioner running the rice mill in the residential area, has also violated the bye-laws of the regulated area in running the industry in the residential locality. The directions issued by the High Court in Smt. Mithilesh Jain (Supra), were accepted by the State Government in compliance of which the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. had issued directions to all the authorities not to permit industrial or commercial activity in the residential areas contrary to the master plan. Once the interim mandamus was accepted by issuing the Government Order on 10.10.2003, the dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution would not take away the effect of the Government Order. The directions issued by the State Government will operate independently unless in the final judgment of the Court the interim mandamus was either recalled or that any directions to the contrary are given by the Court.
We may also add here that the petitioner does not have any right given by any statute or any policy of the State Government for allotment of land and compensation for relocation of industry, at a place outside the residential area. In the present the industry is sought to be closed for causing pollution and running without consent of the U.P. Pollution Control Board under Section 21 of the Air Pollution Act, 1981, and for which an order under Section 31-A of the Act has been passed, the running of industry in the industrial area. The State is not under any obligation to provide help in re-location of polluting industries nor the petitioner has made any request to the concerned authorities or the State Government for any preferential or concessional allotment of land, and any relaxation or exemption for running the relocated industry.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Dt.26.11.2010 SP/