Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/8082/2010	 2/ 4	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8082 of 2010
 

 
=========================================


 

ARJUN
ODEDRA CHAIRMAN AND 

 

MANAGING
DIRECTOR OF 

 

BIOCARE
REMEDIES PVT. LTD. - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

GUJARAT
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THROUGH CHAIRMAN/MEMBER & 1 -
Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MRS KALPANA K RAVAL for Respondent(s) :
1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 07/09/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA) This is a second writ petition filed by an industrialist in the grab and under the caption Public Interest Litigation , who also argued in person. He alleged that air pollution has been causing by the unit of 2nd respondent. Earlier the petitioner moved this Court by filing SCA No. 394 of 2010, which was disposed of on 20th January, 2010, for the reasons mentioned therein, and the Court passed an order allowing the petitioner to approach first respondent Gujarat Pollution Control Board. The said order is quoted below:-

1. Writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner alleging inaction on the part of respondent No.1 to take action for closing the unit run by respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referred to the Development Plan, Gandhinagar, 2011 AD, submitted that, under clause 2.3.20, obnoxious and hazardous industries could not have been granted permission to run such industry at Gandhinagar. It is alleged that the second respondent- industry is dealing with hazardous substance and emitting toxic and obnoxious gases and in spite of repeated requests no action has been taken by respondent No.1.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.

4. From the record, it is evident that the second respondent-industry was granted consents and authorization to run the unit as back as on 27.11.2006 by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board. After three years, the petitioner has indirectly challenged the same. That apart, we also found that the petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director of another industry and is neighbour. Except allegation, no specific case has been made out against the respondent. Under these circumstances, while we are not inclined to interfere with the order of consent granted by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the first respondent, who may make necessary inspection and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after notice to respondent No.2.

5. This petition stands disposed of, but there shall be no order as to costs.

2. The same relief has been sought for in this second writ petition, for direction to Gujarat Pollution Control Board to take appropriate action against second respondent polluting unit in order to close down the said unit. This time, instead of representing through lawyer, petitioner has appeared in person and alleged about pollution caused by 2nd respondent. By filing an affidavit, respondent Pollution Control Board has brought to the notice of the Court that pursuant to the observation made by this Court on 20.1.10, petitioner represented before Pollution Control Board and the Board in its turn got the premises of second respondent inspected on 23.4.2010 and in the said report, the team observed that at the time of visit production of Zink oxide was going on and the ambient air quality was found to be normal. The report has been enclosed as Annexure B to the reply affidavit.

3. We noticed that to be on the safer side, Gujarat Pollution Control Board, under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, ordered Environmental Engineering Department, L.D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad to inspect the unit run by second respondent, and accordingly the said Environmental Engineering Department of L.D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad submitted a report under the caption Identification and Assessment of Air Pollution Sources from M/s. Uttam Industry - 2nd respondent. The report is satisfactory and there is no adverse remark. At paragraph 5.3, the following observation has been made with regard to petitioner complainant.

5.3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring: It was intended to carry out the ambient air quality monitoring twice at the premises of the complainant M/s. Biocare Remedies. However, there was complete non-cooperation on the part of complainant in this regards. During the first monitoring the complainant switched off the machine after 4 hours and during the second monitoring, the permission to keep the machine was not given. So second monitoring could not be done. The results of first ambient air quality monitoring are given at Table No.7 From both the said reports, it would be evident that there is no emission of toxic and obnoxious gases and the ambient air quality is normal and there is no air pollution.

4. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has also filed a Suit against second respondent industry. Petitioner, in spite of the Court's order, failed to justify that second respondent industry is running without proper permission.

5. In view of the fact that no public interest is involved, and it is an adversary litigation appears to have been filed to malign second respondent, for which earlier case was not entertained, for same relief second writ petition has been filed. After a Suit has also been filed against second respondent, it will be evident that petitioner is now trying to take undue advantage under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the reason aforesaid, while we dismiss the writ petition, impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner for payment in favour of Indian Law Institute, Gujarat State, Gujarat High Court Campus. The amount to be paid within a month, failing which the competent authority will take up the matter with the Collector for recovery of the amount by way of arrears of land revenue.

(S.J.

Mukhopadhaya, C.J.) (Anant S. Dave, J.) */Mohandas     Top