Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 7 docs - [View All]
The Indian Forest Act, 1927
The Energy Conservation Act, 2001
Section 21(4) in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 2 in The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Section 3 in The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

User Queries

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.

Jharkhand High Court
Khagen Mahto vs Forest on 5 May, 2015
                                         1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                   W.P (PIL) No. 3039 OF 2014
                                WITH
                           I.A No. 604/2015
                                  ----

Khagen Mahto Son of Sri Raj Kishore Mahto, resident of Village Rugri, PO Chowka PS Chowka Dist- Saraikela-Kharsawan ... Petitioner Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, PO Doranda, P.S Doranda, District Ranchi

3.Divisional Forest Officer, Saraikela-Kharsawan PO & PS Saraikela District - Saraikela-Kharsawan

4.Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board having its office at H.E.C Dhurw PO & PS Dhurwa District Ranchi through its Secretary

5.M/s. Narsingh Ispat Limited through its Managing Director, having its office at Village Khunti Kandra Road, PO Chandil PS Chowka District - Saraikela- Kharsawan .... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.BHATT

----

For the Appellant/Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. V. Kumar, JC to Mr.Ajit Kumar, AAG For the Respondent-JSPCB : Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

------

08/ Dated:5th May, 2015 Per Virender Singh, CJ The grievance projected herein is that the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (for short "Pollution Control Board") has issued "No Objection Certificate" to respondent no.5 to establish industry over the land adjoining forest land, contrary to their own guidelines, therefore, it requires to be quashed. Further direction sought for is for removing of the industry from the present site.

2. Counter affidavit filed by one Suresh Prasad, Range Officer, Saraikela, indicates that respondent No.5 has committed offence under section 2 30(a) & (c) and section 63 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short "Forest Act") as well as section 2 & 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short "Conservation Act") as respondent No.5 has encroached certain protected forest land situated in Mouza Musri Bera Chandil Thana No.176 recorded as Jangal Jhari in the Government Khatiyan. Similarly, respondent No.5, which has also encroached upon some forest land of Kurli Protected Forest and erected 34 electric poles with electric wire by damaging forest crops. Three criminal cases have already been registered against respondent No.5 for violation of Forest Act and Conservation Act.

3. On the last date of hearing it was brought to our notice by learned counsel for the petitioner that after grant of "No Objection Certificate" in favour of respondent No.5, even "Consent To Operate" (for short "CTO") has also been granted to it by the Pollution Control Board.

4. Mr. Pandey, appearing for Pollution Control Board, states that CTO granted in favour of respondent No.5 has since been kept in abeyance by the Pollution Control Board after Forest Department has registered criminal cases against it and that a show cause notice has also been issued to respondent No.5 under section 21(4) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. He states that if need be, even the "No Objection Certificate" already granted in favour of respondent No.5 will also be withdrawn in due course for which a complete procedure provided under the Act is required to be followed.

5. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, when operation of the Unit has already been stalled by keeping CTO in abeyance by Pollution Control Board and that three criminal cases also being registered against respondent No.5 by Forest Department, in our considered view, the grievance as projected in the instant petition by the petitioner stands redressed to. Therefore, continuing with the instant Public Interest Litigation would serve no purpose. It goes without 3 saying that necessary steps shall also be taken for and against respondent No.5 in accordance with law by Pollution Control Board and the Forest Department in due course but unreasonable delay, in any case, will not be appreciated.

Disposed of accordingly.

I.A No. 604/2015 also stands disposed of.

(Virender Singh, C.J.) (P.P.Bhatt, J.) dey/Birendra/LAK