Document Actions
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND : W.P. (C) No. 4034 of 2011
Pollution and Environment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
W.P. (C) No. 4034 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3799 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3823 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3688 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3831 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3846 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3658 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3866 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3796 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3840 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3983 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3665 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 4036 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3856 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3936 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3857 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3648 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3941 of 2011
W.P. (C) No. 3880 of 2011
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
NLS/ENVIS/15.06.2011/Pollution/The High Court of Jharkhand.
The Ministry of Environment & Forests has issued a moratorium on 13.1.2010 restricting environmental clearances for new polluting industries/projects in 43 critically polluted industrial clusters which include only o n e c l u s t e r i . e . D h a n b a d i n t h e S t a t e o f Jharkhand and not the Barajamada industrial cluster where the iron ore crusher of the petitioner is located.
It is submitted that the notification dated 27.7.2010 issued by Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi is not in consonance with O.M. issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The State of Jharkhand has issued a direction dated 27th July 2010 mainly relying upon the office memorandum issued by the Central Government dated 13th January 2010. Thus, it appears that the direction issued by the State Government dated 27th July, 2010 is based upon some misinterpretation or misreading of the office memorandum. the subsequent order issued by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board is also sailing in the same boat because the impugned order passed in August, 2010 based upon the d i r e c t i o n, i s s u e d b y t h e S t a t e o f J h a r k h a n d. Looking to the requirement of Section 21(4) if there is any breach of any of the conditions upon which the consent was given by the Pollution Control Board then the State Pollution Control Board can refuse further consent after expiry of the earlier consent. In the facts of the present case in advance the State has declared its intention not to grant consent or not to renew the consent without pointing out any breach of any of the conditions. Moreover as per the 2nd Proviso to Sub−section 4 of Section 21of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981before refusing further consent under the 1st Proviso of Sub−section 4 of Section 21 a reasonable opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to the petitioner. Prima facie, looking to the facts of the case it appears that the State Government is not alleging any breach of the condition of the consent previously given by the respondent−Board nor any opportunity of being heard has been given by the respondent−Board to the petitioner before issuing the direction as stated in the impugned order in August 2010. Balance of convenience is also in favor of the petitioner as the petitioner which is a working unit has never received any notice for breach of any of the conditions upon which the consent was previously given by the respondent−Board. The petitioner has invested a sizable amount towards the establishment of the crushing unit in view of these facts an irreparable loss will also be caused to the petitioner if the stay as prayed for is not granted. The court stayed the operation implementation and execution of the impugned order passed by the respondents−Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, the court directed the petitioner to continue with the iron ore crushing activities till the next date of hearing.