IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7208 of 2016
===========================================================

M/s Shree Ram Int. Udyog through its Proprietor Sri Pramod Kumar 'Amar', S/o Sri Anand Lal Sah, Resident of At, P.O. & P.S. - Madhepur, District - Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Collector cum District Magistrate, Madhubani.

2. The Circle Officer, Madhepur, District - Madhubani.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani.

4. The Dy. S.P., Jhanjharpur, District - Madhubani.

5. The Officer in charge, Madhepur Police Station, District - Madhubani.

6. The Chowkidar, Madhepur Police Station, District - Madhubani.

7. The District Industries Officer, Madhubani.

8. The District Manager, District Industries Centre, Madhubani.

9. The Chairman (Sri Subhash Chandra Singh), Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Beltrol Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna - 23.

10. The Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna.

11. The District Mining Officer, Madhubani, District - Madhubani.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajit Pratap Singh, SC-15 For Pollution Control Board : Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-05-2016 Heard Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, counsel for the State and Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned senior counsel appearing for the Bihar State Pollution Control Board and its authorities.

The petitioner is a firm running a brick kiln in the district of Madhubani and is aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.2016 passed by the Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), whereby the operation of the brick kiln has been stopped with immediate effect, inter alia, on grounds that it is being operated without complying with the provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Patna High Court CWJC No.7208 of 2016 dt.20-05-2016 2 Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the brick kiln is being operated by the petitioner since last couple of years and has continuously been granted consent by the respondent and copy of the last consent is placed at Annexure-7/e at page 47 which is dated 19.10.2015 and whereunder the petitioner has been granted Emission Consent Order for the period up to 30.6.2018. He thus submits that this single document is sufficient to indicate that the order impugned dated 7.1.2016 putting a restraint on the operation of the petitioner-unit is without application of mind.

Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board has tried to defend the action of 'the Board' on the proceedings arising from CWJC No.19471 of 2015 as well as the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench at Kolkata in O.A. No.61 of 2015/EZ (Joydeep Mukherjee vs. Pollution Control Board, State of Bihar) on the issue, in which the petitioner has been arraigned as respondent no.239 and to submit that certain directives have been issued by the Tribunal in relation to operation of brick kilns under the control and supervision of 'the Board'. A copy of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench at Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), passed on 6.5.2016 in O.A. No.61 of 2015/EZ has also been produced by Mr. Kishore and with reference to the operative part imposing compensation/penalty on the defaulting and illegally operated brick kilns, it is submitted by Mr. Kishore, learned Patna High Court CWJC No.7208 of 2016 dt.20-05-2016 3 counsel appearing for 'the Board' that the petitioner would also have to abide by the directives. The order passed by the 'Tribunal' takes note of the stand of the Member, Bihar State Pollution Control Board in which he has admitted that in all 6186 brick kilns have been identified and out of them 5908 brick kilns have been granted consent to establish and of these 5908 brick kilns only 2824 have been granted consent to operate. It is the stand taken by the 'Board' that those brick kilns who are operating without consent to operate have been issued notice against the proposed action and it is in consideration of such stand taken that the 'Tribunal' has allowed 'the Board' to take necessary steps in this regard but in accordance with law after following the principles of Natural Justice.

In so far as those brick kilns are concerned who are operating even after expiry of the validity period of the consent order as well as the brick kilns who are operating without any such permission from inception, the 'Tribunal' has imposed a compensation/penalty of Rs.1,00 lakh and 1.5 lakh respectively, to be deposited with the 'Board'. The 'Tribunal' has further directed the respondents against whom show cause notices have been issued to approach 'the Board' with supportive documents enabling 'the Board' to pass appropriate orders. Let the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Easter Zone Bench at Kolkata dated 6.5.2016 be maintained on the records of the proceedings.

In my opinion, the order of the 'Tribunal' does not in any manner casts any obligation on the petitioner for the directions requiring a brick kiln to respond, is only in respect of those brick kilns to whom Patna High Court CWJC No.7208 of 2016 dt.20-05-2016 4 any show cause notice has been issued in this regard. In so far as the petitioner is concerned understandably, since the consent order is issued in favour of the petitioner and is operative and valid up to 30.6.2018 there was no occasion for 'the Board' to issue any show cause notice to the petitioner. In my opinion a mere arraignment of this petitioner in the proceedings before the National Green Tribunal in the nature of the order passed by the Tribunal, neither casts any obligation on the petitioner nor can be a foundation for the impugned orders. In fact in view of the Emission Consent Order granted by 'the Board' dated 19.10.2015 present at Annexure-7/e, the order dated 7.1.2016 passed by the Chairman of 'the Board' impugned at Annexure-1 together with the order dated 15.3.2016 of the District Magistrate, Madhubani in so far as it relates to the petitioner as well as the order of the Circle Officer, Madhepur dated 19.3.2016 impugned at Annexure- 3 and 5 respectively are held unsustainable and are accordingly set aside.

The writ petition is allowed (Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-

AFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 23-052016 Transmission Date