Vineet Kumar Jati Vs. State of M.P & Others.




                 Writ Petition No. 15401 / 2011
1.3.2013:
       Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
       Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.

Shri Pushpendra Kaurav, leaned Additional Advocate General with Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

Petitioner has established a Rice Mill in Ward No.8 Majholi, Tehsil and District Jabalpur. Petitioner claims to be a proprietor of said rice mill running in the name and style of M/s. Jati Rice Mill. Challenging the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sihora, District Jabalpur, respondent No.6, directing the petitioner to close the rice mill and is prohibiting the petitioner from carrying out the activities of rice mill, this writ petition has been filed.

2. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the action has been taken behind his back without hearing him, without notice to him. It is averred that respondent No.7 has filed a Public Interest Litigation before this Court being W.P. No.4649/2010 (PIL) and vide order Annexure P-1 dated 10.5.2010, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Collector Jabalpur to consider and decide the representation of respondent No.7 and if required take steps for cancelling of license after hearing all concerned and conducting enquiry.

Inter alia contending that without conducting any enquiry, without hearing him, the license has been cancelled, the writ petition was filed.

3. The Pollution control Board, Regional Director, is also impleaded as respondent No.3 and Shri Pushpendra Kaurav, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appears for the said respondent and has filed detailed reply. From the reply filed by respondent No.3 it is seen that for the purpose of establishing of rice mill certain circulars and provisions with regard to Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 are applicable. It is pointed out by Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi that before establishment of the Rice Mill petitioner did not get approval and sanction of the Pollution Control Board and, therefore, on complaint received, the rice-mill of the petitioner was investigated and it was found that it is creating pollution in the area in question wherein school and other residential houses are situated and, therefore, after issuing notice to petitioner impugned action is taken. It is also stated that the petitioner has remedy of filing appeal under the Green Tribunal Act. Accordingly, on such consideration respondent No.3 objects to the petition.

4. Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel submits that even the Pollution Control Board did not heard the petitioner and did 3 not gave adequate time or opportunity to the petitioner to make good the defects, if any, and review the same instead cancel the license.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of averments made by respondent No.3 in the return it is clear that for establishing and running rice mill in question certain statutory provisions with regard to provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 are to be applied. The statutory provisions contemplate establishment of rice mill in a manner that it does not create pollution either of the air in the surrounding area or water and, therefore, rice mill has to be established after due approval and sanction of the Pollution Control Board. In this case the rice mill is established without due approval and sanction of the said Board and, therefore, it is not proper for this Court to grant permission to the petitioner to carry out functioning of rice mill in the absence of proper compliance being made with regard to Prevention of Pollution Control Act.

6. However, as petitioner has already established rice mill, interest of justice requires that opportunity should be granted to him to make good the default, if any, in the matter of complying with the statutory requirement with regard to air and water pollution.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that on petitioner's filing an appropriate application in accordance to statutory requirement before respondent No.3 and on his complying with such other requirement as is contemplated under law, his claim for grant of sanction for establishing and running the present rice mill shall be considered by respondent No.3 and the decision taken with regard to grant of permission or otherwise, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with other particulars.

8. If on such enquiry conducted under the statutory provisions respondent No.3 is convinced that permission can be granted, petitioner can run the rice mill after necessary permission has been granted, else respondent No.3 shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate speaking order.

9. With the aforesaid this petition is allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-