Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981

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.

Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Ravi Kant Bansal vs Industrial Infrastructure on 3 May, 2018
                          1
             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      W.P. No.392/2008
   (M/s. Ravi Kant Bansal Vs. Industrial Infrastructure
            Development Corporation & Ors.)

Gwalior, Dated :03.05.2018
        Shri S.S. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
        Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for respondent
No. 1

Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4/State.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner not challenging any particular order but being aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 1 in not extending the lease period for want of NOC by respondent No. 3 and the Pollution Control Board.

It is petitioner's contention that petitioner is a small scale industry having registration under the DIC dated 12.05.1992 having its registered office at Gwalior. According to the petitioner, work of respondent No. 1 is to develop infrastructure facilities for establishment of industry and accordingly petitioner after obtaining permission had established a plant for manufacture of hot mixed Asphalt products at Malanpur area for which lease was executed on 20.10.1992. Land measuring 4046.86 Sq.m. was allotted and the initial period of lease was six years i.e. it was to end on 19.10.1998 but same has not been extended and accordingly petitioner prays for direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the application of the petitioner for extension of period of 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.392/2008 (M/s. Ravi Kant Bansal Vs. Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation & Ors.) lease deed and pass suitable orders and till then, it has been prayed that respondent No. 1 be restrained not to remove/dis-mantal petitioner's hot mixed plant by way of any coercive process. Direction has also been sought against respondent No. 3 to issue NOC in compliance of the approval given by respondent No. 2.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the other hand submits that this is second round of litigation. Earlier petitioner had filed W.P. No. 1154/2000 in which vide order dated 07.09.2006 petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit no objection certificate from Fire Station, Malanpur and clearance from Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board within a period of one month. It was directed that if these documents are produced, then respondent No. 1 shall consider the case of the petitioner for extension of lease deed in his favour. It is further submitted that though Pollution Control Board had renewed the permission for a period of two years under the provisions of Air Pollution Control Act, 1981 vide order Annexure P-3 but application of the petitioner as was forwarded by the Head quarters of Fire Brigade vide Annexure P-4 has been rejected by the concerned authority i.e. respondent No. 3 vide order dated 07.12.2006 (Annexure P-8). It is submitted that there has been no 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.392/2008 (M/s. Ravi Kant Bansal Vs. Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation & Ors.) lapse on the part of respondent No. 1, inasmuch as petitioner had though sent a communication Annexure P-5 dated 27.12.2006 but had not enclosed copy of decision under Section 133 by the Court at Gohad. On the contrary, on 06.11.2006 In-charge General Manager had asked the petitioner to submit necessary documents in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 07.09.2006 but such documents were not filed and another reminder was sent on 03.02.2007 seeking copy of NOC from Deputy Inspector General of Police, Fire Brigade, Indore.

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that in absence of clearance from the Fire Brigade Department, extension of lease cannot be granted to the petitioner.

It is also submitted that in fact spot inspection report of the authorities of the Fire Brigade Services as are contained in Annexure R-1 points out towards the nuisance and pollution and justifies refusal of NOC. Similarly, order passed by SDO Revenue Gohad, dated 14.11.2006 has been filed as Annexure R-2 to point out that in fact even SDO, Gohad, has categorically mentioned in the order that hot mix plant be closed immediately and removed from the rural populated area of Malanpur and accordingly order Annexure R-3 was 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.392/2008 (M/s. Ravi Kant Bansal Vs. Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation & Ors.) issued to the SHO, Malanpur. In view of such submissions, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition.

It is an admitted position that petitioner has not challenged the order Annexure P-8 before this Court. Therefore, once the respondent No. 3 has refused to grant permission/NOC to the petitioner it cannot be said that there is any violation of the order of the High Court dated 15.09.2006 because condition precedent for consideration of petitioner's case for extension of lease deed was NOC from Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board and NOC from Fire Station Malanpur. As there is no NOC from Fire Station Malanpur, merely forwarding of a communication by the Inspector General of Police to the competent authority will not entitle the petitioner to claim any relief for extension of lease deed in his favour.

It is also seen that petitioner has misrepresented the facts in the writ petition. It is apparent from Annexure P-5 that the order under Section 133 was never filed from the competent Court, on the other hand SDO had not entertained the plea of the petitioner in regard to continuance of hot mixed plant on the finding recorded by it that such hot mixed plaint was not only causing environmental pollution but also was a source of nuisance which required to be removed immediately 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.392/2008 (M/s. Ravi Kant Bansal Vs. Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation & Ors.) from the Abadi area.

In view of such facts, no directions can be issued against respondent No. 1 for renewal of the lease. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.



                                                         (Vivek Agarwal)
shanu                                                         Judge


        SHANU RAIKWAR
        2018.05.07 12:01:39 +05'30'
        11.0.8