IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                       .
                                          CWP No.: 5865 of 2012





                           Date of decision: 06.09.2017
    __________________________________________________
    Liaq Ram                                      ....Petitioner.





                                              Vs.

    H. P. State Pollution Control Board                                     .....Respondent.





    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
    Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

    For the petitioner:                   Mr. Y. P. Sood, Advocate.

    For the respondent:                   Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate

    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):

Mr. Abhay Gupta, Junior Environmental Engineer of the respondent board is present alongwith the record. He submits that besides the complaint being there against setting-up of the Mushroom Compost Plant by the present petitioner, the case of the petitioner otherwise stands rejected vide communication dated 24.06.2010, which is already appended with the reply so filed to the writ petition by the respondent. Mr. Gupta further submits that plant which the petitioner intends to establish is Mushroom Compost Plant and the same even otherwise cannot be permitted in the residential area because foul smell is likely to be emitted after the establishment of the said plant.

2. This is vehemently disputed by Mr. Y. P. Sood, who while drawing attention to Annexure P-8 appended with the petition, submits that no such ground has been taken by the board while rejecting the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

case of the petitioner and his case has been rejected on the sole .

ground that one Hem Chand has filed a complaint against setting-up of the said plant and he has not issued 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the petitioner.

3. Taking into consideration the fact that the reasons which have been so stated by Mr. Gupta do not find mention in Annexure P-8 that each case of the petitioner has been rejected, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent board to re-consider the case of the petitioner without being influenced by earlier letter dated 24.06.2010 and Annexure P-8 dated 02.04.2011. For this purpose, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent board on 18.09.2017 at 11.00 A.M. and in case, any other formalities/ permissions/sanctions are required to be obtained by the petitioner in this regard, then respondent board shall intimate the petitioner and shall also grant reasonable time to the petitioner to fulfill the formalities. Whether or not the plant is to be established by the petitioner, shall be decided by the respondent strictly as per law and rules governing the field and the factum of the unit so being proposed by the petitioner meeting with the requirement of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

4. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision so taken by the respondent board, then the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate court/forum for redressal of his grievance, if so required.

.

5. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

    September 6, 2017                            (Ajay Mohan Goel)
    (rana)                                           Judge




                 r           to









                                         ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2008 05:32:43 :::HCHP