JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The present writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for restraining the Union of India from issuing an Environment Clearance Certificate in favour of M/s. Pioneer Ltd. respondent No. 5 permitting it to establish and run a Distillery Unit and a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the recommendation/No Objection Certificate issued by the Punjab Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board).

2. The petitioners are the residents of the villages situated in the close vicinity of Industrial Growth Centre, Defence Road, Village Ranipur near Pathankot, where respondent No. 5 has set up a unit for the manufacture of Gluten and Glucose. It is alleged that the said unit is emitting pollution much beyond the prescribed limits. It is not only polluting the air but is also causing water pollution as effluents are discharged with water without treatment. The area does not even have a proper sewerage system and thus, the waste disposal is becoming a health hazard for the residents of the area.

3. The petitioners have further pleaded that as industrial growth was not taking place in the Industrial Growth Centre, therefore, the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. who has set up such Industrial Growth Centre, converted the land meant for setting up of Industrial Units into residential area. About 400 plots were allotted in the year 2000/2001. The residential plots were carved out adjacent to the unit of respondent No. 5. Village Akhwana with a population of about 3000 is situated at a distance of about 100 yards from the outer wall of the unit of respondent No. 5. About 30 villages surrounded such Industrial Growth Centre within a radius of 5 kilometres with a population of 1,25,000. It is pleaded that despite the pollution emitted by the unit already run by respondent No. 5, the said respondent is proposing to set up a distillery for manufacturing of alcohol in the said area.

4. By virtue of notification dated 27.1.2004, Environment Clearance is contemplated from the Central Government after granting a public hearing. A public notice was issued to convene a public meeting in pursuance of the said notification for 29.4.2003. Since only few persons turned out on t he said d ate, the public hearing was organised on 13.5.2003 at the factory gate of unit of respondent No. 5, on which date about 1500 persons from the vicinity including the petitioners and other respectables attended such meeting. It is the case of the petitioners that public clearly objected in the said meeting the setting up of a distillery as it would completely destroy the area on account of air and water pollution. The level of sub soil water would be further lowered and the air pollution on account of the burning of fuel comprising of rice husk would create a hazard to the health of the residents of the area which was already economically backward. The air pollution was alleged to be apparent to the naked eye as the effluents in the air were settling on the people who had "gathered for the public hearing. Though the public meeting was attended by a large number of residents but as the outcome of the meeting was not likely to be favourable to respondent No. 5, another public hearing was organised on 29.10.2003. The said meeting was organised at P.W.D. Rest House, Pathankot, which is about 8 kilometres from the spot whereas the previous public hearing was organised at the factory gate of the unit of respondent No. 5. It is further pointed out that the petitioners reached at the spot for meeting but none of the officials of respondent No. 2 were present. A memorandum was submitted to the Sub Divisional Officer (C) objecting to setting up of distillery at the said place, but subsequently, the petitioners came to know that the meeting dated 29.10.2003 was cancelled. Another meeting was organised for 3.12.2003 but the petitioners were not permuted to attend the meeting which was convened in the said P.W.D. Rest House. The petitioners submitted a memorandum to the Sub Divisional Officer (C), Pathankot.

5. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, the State Authorities have failed to comply with the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. It has failed to consider and appreciate the effect of the air and water pollution emitted by the distillery unit proposed to be established and the public hearing was organised as an eye wash to manipulate a favourable finding in favour of respondent No. 5. It is further pointed out that in terms of notification dated 20.1.1998 the distillery unit cannot be set up at the proposed site as it is in the near vicinity of residential colony establishment by Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. respondent No. 4. The said notification contemplates that consent to establish any industry in any approved residential area colony developed by any Government Agency shall not be granted. Thus, it is alleged that "No Objection Certificate" cannot be granted to respondent No. 5.

6. Separate written statements have been filed by each of the respondents. In the written statements dated 19.5.2004, it was the stand of respondent-No. 1 that the said respondent has not received any application from respondent No. 5 or any other person for environmental clearance of the proposed distillery unit under the provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of the year 1994. However, during the course of hearing, a communication dated 31.1.2005 was produced wherein Ministry of Environment and Forests has accorded environmental clearance to the project under the provisions of EIA notification dated 27th January, 1994 subject to the strict compliance of the specific and general conditions and subject to the decision of the present writ petition. It also contemplated that unit will adopt continuous fermentation technology. Spantwash generation will be less than 12 KL of alcohol produced. Spantwash generated will be evaporated in a multiple effect evaporator, which will be designed for continuous concentration from 2.25% solids to 35% solids. Solid wastes generated in the form of MEE residue will be used as cattle feed. There will be zero discharge of effluents from the distillery.

7. The State of Punjab, respondent No. 2 reply stated that "No Objection Certificate" has been issued in favour of respondent No. 5 for setting up distillery in the same premises subject to the meticulous adherence to all the norms and conditions applicable and laid down by the Board and Central Pollution Control Board. Respondent No. 3 Punjab Pollution Board denied that unit of respondent No. 5 is creating water and air pollution. The said Industrial Unit is situated in designated industrial area and had been operating from March, 2002 after obtaining necessary consent to operate under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It was further stated that the industry has been visited from time to time by the officials of the respondent and the samples of effluents/emissions from the said industry were collected and analysed which clearly reveal that various parameters of the effluents/emissions are within the permissible limits. It is denied that public hearing on 13.5.2003 was an eye wash which was supervised by a panel of members nominated by the Government as per the procedure laid down in the notification. 165 persons were present in the hearing which is evident from the attendance register maintained at the time of the hearing. Subsequently, the industry submitted a representation to the Board stating that they have informed the public about the pollution control measures which would be taken to control any pollution likely to be caused by the proposed distillery project and requested the Board to conduct the public hearing again. The said public meeting was held on 11.2.2004 after reschedule of the meeting date. Not only the public notices were published in the daily newspapers but also Sarpanches of the affected villages were personally informed about the public hearing and 257 persons attended the hearing. The Board in its written statement stated to the following effect:-

"The answering respondent has technically evaluated the pollution control equipments proposed to be installed in the distillery project. In this regard it would be relevant to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that the proposed distillery project will have zero discharge i.e. no waste water generated from the distillery will be discharged anywhere. This technology of zero discharge has been proposed by the project proponent in accordance with the guide-lines framed by the Ministry of Environment & Forests/Central Pollution Control Board with regard to the distilleries. In fact, the water pollution control equipments proposed by the project proponent i.e. multiple effect evaporator are first of its kind in the State. The entire spent wash generated from the distillery will be burnt in the multiple effect evaporator. Moreover, the raw material to be used in the distillery will be wheat grains instead of molasses traditionally used by the distilleries which are potentially more pollution generating and cause odour problem. It is further pertinent to mention here that the Board has yet not issued 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) to the industry. All the pollution control measures proposed by the industry will be thoroughly checked for their feasibility before the grant of NOC to the said industry."

8. Respondent No. 4 Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited, permitted distillery unit in view of the undertaking of the industry that alcohol shall be their by product and that the proposed distillery shall conform to the zero effluent/emission discharge as per norms and guide-lines of the Board.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that public hearing on 11.2.2004 was a farce and thus, clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests is not legal and proper. It has also been argued that the plot measuring 22 acres has been allotted to respondent No. 5 only for setting up of a unit Wheat Starch, Gluten, Modified Starch and its by product. Therefore, the distillery should not be set up at the said plot. It is further argued that the distillery unit is sought to be set up near the residential area and such distillery unit is to cause water and air pollution which would be hazardous to the health of the inhabitants of the locality.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The detailed facts and circumstances have been given in the written statements filed on behalf of the Board as well as that of respondent No. 5 to the effect that public hearing was held on 11.2.2004. In fact, the factum of hearing on the said date is not disputed by the petitioners as well. A reading of the written statements leaves no manner of doubt that such meeting was attended by large number of persons. But we do not find any irregularity in the conduct of meeting on 11.2.2004 which was attended by more than 250 persons. It is not the case of the petitioners that any of the requirements of public hearing contemplated in notification dated 27.1.1994 has not been complied with. Therefore, the Environmental Clearance granted by or on behalf of respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or irregularity.

11. The plot measuring approximately 22 acres was, no doubt, allotted for setting up a unit for Wheat Starch, Gluten, Modified Starch and its by product by issuance of a letter of intent on 30.12.1999. Clause 19 of such letter contemplates that the allottee shall not carry on without the written consent of the Corporation or permit to be carried on the plot or use the same or permit the same to be used for any other purpose other than that for which it has been offered. In pursuance of such condition in letter of allotment, respondent No. 5 has sought user thereof for the purpose of distillery by representing that the alcohol shall be by product and the distillery shall conform to the zero effluent/emissions discharge as per the norms of the Board. In pursuance of such communication, respondent No. 4 has given in principal "No. Objection" in setting up distillery by respondent No. 5 subject to their meticulous adherence of all norms and condition as applicable and laid by the Board and Central Pollution Control Board, especially subject to discharge of effluents after appropriate/prescribed pre-treatment as per norms of the Board. It is, thus, apparent that respondent No. 5 has requisite consent to use the plot allotted for the purpose of distillery. The said respondent has been granted permission to set up distillery for the reason that it is a zero affluent/emission discharge project. The entire discharge is prepared to be evaporated as per the project propounded by respondent No. 5. Still further, raw material to be used in the distillery will be wheat grains instead of molasses traditionally used by the distilleries which are potentially more pollution generating and cause odour problems.

12. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 5 cannot use the plot for the purpose of distillery.

13. The argument that the distillery should not be set up by respondent No. 5 near the residential colony set up is again devoid of merit. Reliance is on the notification dated 20.1.1998 published by the Board w herein it is stipulated t hat consent shall not be granted to any industry which proposes to establish in any approved residential area/colonies developed by any Government agency such as Punjab Urban Development Authority, Municipal Corporation and Improvement Trust etc. However, the said argument is again not tenable for the reason that the unit has been set up in an Industrial Growth Centre. After the plot was allotted to respondent No. 4, respondent No. 3 has carved out residential plots. The unit is not sought to be established in residential area but in an Industrial Growth Centre. Therefore, bar in the notification dated 20.1.1998 is not applicable. Since the residential plots have been carved out after setting up of Industrial Growth Centre, the allottees thereof cannot make a grievance of industrial activity being carried out in the said Industrial Growth Centre. It may be noticed that it is the categoric case of the respondents that there is no effluent/emission of any discharge nor the unit is using molasses for the purpose of distillery, therefore, there is no cause of concern to the inhabitants of the residential area.

14. In view of the above, we do not find that the action of the respondent in granting "No Objection Certificate" and/or Environmental clearance to respondent No. 5 suffers from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Dismissed.