IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            W.P. (C) No. 629 of 2009
              Suresh Prasad Jaiswal....     ...        ...    ...      ...       Petitioner
                                          Versus
              The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ...      ...    ...      Respondents
                                       ------
              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
                                       ------
              For the Petitioner:      Mr. R.S Mazumdar
              For the Respondents:     Mr. A.K. Pandey
                                       ------
4/15.7.2009

I have heard both sides.

The petitioner wanted to set up an industry. He applied for NOC to the Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred as the "Board" for short). The Board required the petitioner to submit its project through a government agency or "approved" agency. Despite request of the petitioner, the Board refused to specify which agencies were "approved" for the purpose. The Board also did not inform the petitioner in writing of any shortcoming in his application for NOC. The petitioner's application was rejected. In the counter affidavit the Board has referred to certain short- comings allegedly resulting in the rejection order.

I am unable to appreciate the conduct of the Board. Having regard to need to develop an industrial climate in the country in general and in this resource-rich State of Jharkhand in particular, the Board, before rejecting the claim of the petitioner for obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' under the Pollution Control Act ought to have pointed out to the petitioner in writing by way of a letter what exactly were the shortcomings in the documents submitted by the petitioner, how they could be removed, and should have given reasonable time to the petitioner to rectify those defects. The calling of the petitioner to the Board's Office apart from causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioner, may also involve the risk of undesirable allegation against the Board's officers. Disclosure for first time in the counter affidavit about what were the shortcomings on part of the petitioner does not give the impression that the Board's attitude is helpful towards the prospective industrialists, which impression is harmful to the image of the State.

For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.7.2008 is hereby quashed. The respondent will intimate the petitioner the exact shortcomings by way of a letter and not by calling the petitioner to the Office and 2. give him a reasonable time to rectify those defects and if any further defects remain or are found thereafter, the same will again be dealt with in a similar manner. Rejection of the NOC request will only be the last resort, when a conclusion is reached that the applicant is not interested in setting up the industry or that he is not interested in complying with the legal requirements of the pollution control law.

It is expected that the Officers of the Government will function in order to help the Industrial climate in this Country and not to impede the same by rejecting the application for 'No Objection Certificate' or 'license' on undisclosed grounds and making the entrepreneurs rush to the Court every time.

Personal appearance of the respondent is recorded. The petition is disposed off finally.

(Sushil Harkauli, J.) Sudhir/FA N.A.F.R.