Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/10977/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10977 of
2010 
 
=================================================
 

GAYATRI
STONE SUPPLY CO THROUGH PARTNER - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

REGIONAL
OFFICER & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

================================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR
ADIL R MIRZA for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR SUNIL L MEHTA for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. 
MR RITURAJ M MEENA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

Date
: 06/10/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA) The petitioner, a stone crushing unit, has preferred this writ petition against notice dated 05.03.2010 issued by respondent-Gujarat Pollution Control Board. The petitioner has been asked to comply with certain directions, which stipulated that on failure, prosecution u/Sec.37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as `the Air Act for short) may be initiated. The petitioner has been directed to stop operations of its unit till the adequate air pollution control equipment and control measures to stop all vibration are installed and efficiently operated and the consent under the provisions of Air Act is obtained.

2. It appears that the petitioner earlier applied for Consolidated Consent and Authorization (C.C.A.) on 25.02.2010 from the Gujarat Pollution Control Board. When the said matter was pending, impugned notice dated 05.03.2010 was issued. During the pendency of the writ petition the application preferred by petitioner C.C.A. has been rejected on 20.09.2010.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board submits that there being a provision of appeal u/Sec.31 of Air Act, the petitioner may prefer an appeal.

4. Per contra, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the rectification measures have already been taken by the petitioner, therefore, the authorities of Gujarat Pollution Control Board should be directed to re-inspect the petitioner's unit and on its satisfaction be directed to issue C.C.A.

5. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. We have noticed the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has already taken rectification measures and state that there is no infirmity or deficiency in running its unit. If that be so, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the competent authority of Gujarat Pollution Control Board and may file a fresh application for C.C.A. along with requisite fee. If such application is filed along with requisite fee, the competent authority of Gujarat Pollution Control Board will re-inspect the unit and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of such application with requisite fee.

7. In the alternative, it is also open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board within two weeks and it will be open to the Gujarat Pollution Control Board to allow the petitioner to go for trial run for proper inspection. Special Civil Application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

(S.J.

MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.) (ANANT S. DAVE, J.) [sn devu] pps     Top