IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              W.P.(C) No. 3834 of 2011
                        --------

M/s Sri Sai Enterprises ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & ors. ... Respondents

--------

CORAM:              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
                          --------
For the petitioner:       M/s Saurav Arun & P.P.Roy, Advocates
For State of Jharkhand: J.C. to SC-I

For the Union of India: Mr. M. Khan, ASGI For the Board: Mr. A.K.Pandey, Advocate

--------

st Order No. 03: Dated 1 August, 2011 Per D.N.Patel, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without following the procedure, as laid down under Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, since no notice has been given to the petitioner, the petitioner-unit has been closed, on the basis of some office memorandum, issued by the Central Government whereas the Central Government has never given such direction for closure of the units, which are situated at West Singhghum. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in several other writ petitions, this Court has issued Rule and as an interim relief, the crushing units have been allowed to continue with their activities.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents is seeking time to file counter affidavit.

3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, which is working as a crushing unit since the year, 2005. Thereafter, for renewal of valid NOC, application has been given by the petitioner, but, the respondents are not passing any order thereupon and never they have issued the order at Annexure 8 to the memo of petition and they are relying upon some office memorandum, issued by the Central Government. Looking to the other aspect of the matter, it appears that this Court in approximately 3/4 dozen matters, has granted stay, one of them is W.P.(C) No. 3277 of 2011.

4. In that view of the matter, Rule.

5. Notice of Rule to the respondents. Learned counsel for the State 2. waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2, Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel, waives notice on behalf of respondent no.3 whereas Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel, waives notice on behalf of respondent no.4 and they are seeking time to file reply.

6. Time as prayed for is granted. Rule is made returnable on 25th August, 2011.

7. In view of the fact that no notice of hearing has been given to the petitioner, which is required under The Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, as also in view of the fact that this Court in several other writ petitions, including W.P.(C) No. 3277 of 2011, has granted interim order of stay, I hereby direct the respondents to allow the petitioner-unit to continue with its crushing activities, till next date of hearing.

( D.N. Patel, J. ) A.K.Verma/