IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT R A N C H I
                                   ----
                            W.P(PIL) NO.1295/2009
                                   ----
               Citizen Forum                 .... Petitioner.

                                        Versus

               State of Jharkhand & Ors.                   ............      Respondents.
                                              ----
              CORAM :              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                  HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
                                             ---
              For the Petitioner:              Mr.S.K.Singh.
              For the Respondent               M/s.A.K.Pandey, J.C. to A.G. &
                                               A.K.Choudhary.
                                             -----
04/28.05.2009

This writ petitioner has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent no.6 restraining him from running the factory, M/s.Sun Flower Steel Industries, Isri Bazar, at Dumri as the factory has been set up in the heart of the town of Isri Bazar in the district of Giridih which is a densely populated area adjacent to a Jain Middle School, Bhagat School and Shiv Mandir. It was also alleged that the factory has been illegally established without obtaining no objection certificate from the Pollution Control Board which is a gross violation of the Pollution Control Act.

Show cause notices were issued to the respondent- State, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board as also respondent no.6 who is the proprietor of the factory.

Learned counsel representing Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board submitted that the factory had been started without no objection certificate from the Pollution Control Board. However, Pollution Control Board had not passed any order on the file seeking no objection certificate but ultimately in May, 2009 it has also refused to grant no objection certificate to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 on the other hand submitted that the Pollution Control Board was legally required to reject the application of the respondent no.6 seeking no objection certificate within a period of four months and as per the provision of the Act, the respondent-Pollution Control Board did not issue any order refusing the certificate due to which an inference was drawn that there is no objection on the part of the Pollution Control Board.

However, we are not concerned with this plea of the Respondent no.6, counsel for the industry for although the Pollution 2. Control Board had maintained silence on the application seeking no objection certificate, the respondent no.6 was legally bound to obtain clearance from the competent authority and the plea that a clearance was granted by all authorities in favour of respondent no.6 is strongly refuted by the counsel for the respondent-Pollution Control Board.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that respondent no.6 has already preferred an appeal before the competent authority against the rejection of no objection certificate by the Pollution Control Board. Thus, the grievance raised by the petitioner already stands addressed by the Pollution Control Board although at a belated stage.

In view of the rejection of no objection certificate to the respondent no.6 as also in view of the fact that the industry is no longer running now, the grievance of the petitioner ceases to survive.

This petition, therefore, be treated as disposed of in view of the fact that the cause of action has been rendered infructuous.

(Gyan Sudha Misra,C.J.) ( D.K.Sinha, J ) Biswas