Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C). No. 1873 of 2018
with
I.A. No. No. 4322 of 2018
----------
Electrosteel Steels Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Shiyaljori, Jogidih, Bangaria, P.O. & P.S. Chandankeyari, District Bokaro, represented through its Chief Operating Officer, Suresh Kandelwal, son of Shri Banwari Lal Khandelwal, resident of Plot No. 103, Lohanchal Housing Colony, Sector-12, P.O. & P.S. Sector-12, District Bokaro.
... ... ... ...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, through its Member Secretary, at Town Administrative Building, H.E.C. Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. The Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, H.E.C. Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
... ... ... ....Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mrs. Richa Sanchita, SC-IV
----------
W.P.(C). No. 1873 of 2018 05/ 16.07.2018 At the outset, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to add Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Govt. of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Prithwi Wing, Jorbag Road, New Delhi-110003, as party respondent No. 3, in view of letter No. B-2105, dated 18.12.2017.
Prayer is allowed.
Let necessary insertion in the cause-title of the writ petition be made in course of the day.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve two copies of the writ petition upon the Assistant Solicitor General of India having his office at Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, within two days from today. 2 I.A. No. 4322 of 2018 So far this interlocutory application is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for renewal of consent to operate under the provision of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, is pending before the respondent No. 1 since 24.08.2017 and the application dated 24.08.2017 is contained at Annexure-18 to the supplementary affidavit but till date no final order has been passed. He further submits that the consent to operate was valid till 31.12.2017 and much prior to that they have already filed application along with necessary fees and all formalities on their end has been completed. He submits that on one hand the application has been kept pending and on other hand, the petitioner is facing difficulty in running its Unit. He submits that it is not open to the Respondents to keep the matter pending for an indefinite period although under the provisions of the aforesaid Acts, the application has to be disposed of within a period of four months.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna decided in case of Ramco Industries Ltd. Vs. the Bihar State Pollution Control Board and Ors., passed in C.W.J.C. No. 421 of 2017 and has referred to para-42 of the said judgments and submits that the interim order may be granted in terms of para-42 of the said judgment.
Upon this counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits there is no difficulty in taking decision on the application which has been filed by the petitioner and she has received instructions that a final decision on this application can be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, she could not dispute the fact that the Unit of the Petitioner 3 cannot be made to suffer on account of non-disposal of their application which is pending since 29.08.2017.
After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that admittedly the consent which was granted to the petitioner expired on 31.12.2017 and the application for consent was made on 24.08.2017 but no order has been passed on the same till date and accordingly, as on date, the consent to operate is not available to the petitioner. This Court finds that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of non-action on the part of the respondent-Board. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent-Board to take a final decision on the application filed by the petitioner as back as on 24.08.2017, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and bring the order which may be passed on record by filing an affidavit.
Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, this Court grants interim order to the extent that till the next date the petitioner be allowed to operate under the supervisory regulatory control of the respondent-Board, who may carry out periodical checks as to the adherence by the petitioner to the aforesaid Pollution Control Acts.
Resultantly, I.A. No. 4322 of 2018 stands allowed.
W.P.(C). No. 1873 of 2018 The counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 prays for and is allowed four weeks time to file counter-affidavit. From perusal of letter dated 18.12.2017 at Annexure-7, it appears that a letter has been issued by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Govt. of India, New Delhi, that one show-cause was issued as back as in the year 2012 but final outcome is not known to the Jharkhand Pollution Control Board. In view of the letter, it 4 has become necessary to add the Union of India, through Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, as respondent in this case.
The newly added respondent, Union of India may file their counter- affidavit within a period of four weeks.
As prayed, put-up this case on 24.08.2018.
The affidavit on behalf of respondent-Board should be filed by 20.08.2018 and interim order is granted till 24.08.2018.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) kunal/ punit/ -