- (1.) This Writ Petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation has been preferred by the petitioners, who are residents of Block No.613 of Village Prempur, Taluka Himatnagar, District Sabarkantha redressing serious grievance as regard environmental pollution caused by stone crushing (quarry) unit run by respondents No.6, 7 and 8 have prayed for the following relief: "(A) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 and 4 (at Annexure M and P to the petition) allowing to restart the mining activities, which are passed contrary to the observations made by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No.7293 of 2010 read with Misc. Civil Application No.2524 of 2010, decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Harron Ansari and Another vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 2004 AIR(SC) 823providing one kilometer as a safe distance between crushing unit and residential locality and also contrary to the statement made by Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. to 8 and also without making any endeavour or attempt to ensure safety of human inhabitation of the adjoining area and without considering the impact of mining operations upon agricultural fields or health and hygiene of the locality and underground water and also in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (B) To issue the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the Collector, Sabarkantha to take appropriate steps to cancel the mining lease in question of the respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 as the agriculturists and residents of the surrounding area are facing multiple environment related problems and are exposed to serious risk and hazard to their safety on account of blasting operations and there is substantial reduction of the underground water. (C) To direct the respondent authorities not to allow respondent Nos. 6 to 8 to carry out mining activities in Block No.651, Village Prempur, Taluka- Himatnagar, District Sabarkantha, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (D) To direct the respondent authorities not to allow the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 to carrry out mining activities in Block No.651 of Village Prempur, Taluka- Himatnagar, Dist. Sabarkantha pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition." I. ORIGIN AND GENESIS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION :
(2.) Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this Public Interest Litigation can be summarized as under: 2. 1 Petitioners are agriculturists and are residing at Village Prempur situated in Taluka-Himatnagar of District- Sabarkantha and Village Pipodar, situated in Taluka-Himatnagar of District-Sabarkantha. It appears from the record that the petitioners had preferred Special Civil Application No.7293 of 2010 alleging environmental pollution being caused by respondent Nos.6 to 8. It was alleged that the respondent Nos.6 to 8 were using crushing machine (stone crushing unit) causing multiple environmental problems relating to health, hygiene and safety of the agriculturists of the surrounding area. Quarry lease was granted by respondent State Authority in Block No.651 of Village Prempur, adjoining to it are the agricultural lands. They highlighted before this Court that pollution is being caused by respondent No.6 to 8. 2.2 It appears that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.08.2010, disposed of the writ petition taking note of the fact that respondent Nos.6 to 8 have closed the unit. However, with same suitable observation the Division Bench disposed of the petition being Special Civil Application No.7293 of 2010. We would like to quote the order passed by this Court at the relevant point of time with regard to the same subject matter: "The petitioners preferred the writ petition alleging environment pollution as being caused by respondents nos. 6 to 8. It was alleged that the respondents nos. 6 to 8 were using crushing machine causing multiple problems relating to health, hygiene and safety of the agriculturists of the surrounding area. The quarry lease has been granted by respondent State authorities in Block No.651 of Prempura. Adjoining to it are the agricultural lands. They have highlighted the pollution being caused by the respondents nos. 6 to 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State referred to Collector's report and submitted that a minimum distance of 200 mts. is prescribed under the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1963. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in a similar case, Pollution Control Board has specified 1 km. to be safe distance between crusher and human habitation. Reliance has been placed on Supreme Court decision in Mohammed Haroon Ansari and another Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 2004 AIR(SC) 823. That was a case where mining quarrying operations were seen to be causing pollution, the expert committee appointed by High Court opined that 1 km. is safe distance between site under quarry lease and residential locality or Ground Level Service Reservoir. Pollution Control Board also specified 1 km. to be safe distance between crusher and human habitation. The Supreme Court accepted the said position. In view of such decision of Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent-State should modify the 1963 Minor Mineral Rules in view of the report of the Pollution Control Board and decision of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Haroon Ansari . 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gujarat State Pollution Control Board submits that the Board having found that the respondents nos. 6 to 8 were causing pollution in the area cancelled the Consolidated Consent and Authorization (C.C.A.) by order dated 21.07.2010. In view of the cancellation of such consent the respondents nos. 6 to 8 cannot operate the crushing unit. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents nos. 6 to 8 while accepting that they have closed the unit, submits that they be allowed to apply for fresh lease in an area where the public in general will not be affected. In this connection, we are not expressing any opinion, but may only observe that the crushing unit can be allowed to operate without causing pollution and affecting the agricultural fields or human habitation or the health and hygiene of the locality including the water reservoirs, etc. No further order is required to be passed in this case. The writ petition stands disposed of." 2.3 Record also reveals that Respondent Nos.6 to 8 thereafter preferred Misc. Civil Application No.2524 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.7293 of 2010 for review and recall of order dated 31.08.2011 passed by this Court. This Review Application was also disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 24.11.2010. We would like to reproduce Para 7 of the said order: "7.We have heard counsel for the parties and noticed the statement. We do not want to make any observation with regard to the stand taken by counsel for the respondents nos. 6 to 8 (applicants herein), but may only observe that this Court generally records the statement of counsel in verbatim, if orally made. This Court by its order dated 31.08.2010 having not expressed any further opinion and having passed any further order in the Special Civil Application No.7293 of 2010, taking into consideration the fact that the unit of original respondents nos. 6 to 8 (applicants herein) has been closed, the question of recalling or modification of order dated 31.08.2010 does not arise. Respondents nos. 6 to 8 (applicants herein) will apply for fresh lease in an area where public in general will not be affected. The statement made by counsel for the respondents nos. 6 to 8 (applicants herein) will not preclude them to make any application in accordance with law, including application for grant of fresh C.C.A. In such a case, the Gujarat Pollution Control Board before passing any order will take into consideration the safety of the human inhabitation of the adjoining area. The petition for review stands disposed of with aforesaid observations. No costs." 2.4 It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of clear observation made by the Division Bench earlier in the point of time that crushing unit may be allowed to operate without causing pollution and affecting the agricultural fields or human habitation or the health and hygiene of the locality including the water reservoirs, etc. the authorities concerned namely respondent No.1- Collector, Sabarkantha and respondent No.3- Gujarat Pollution Board has once again granted permission to start the crushing unit which is only at a distance of 645 meters from the residential locality and the agricultural fields. It is also the case of the petitioners that Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 have started blasting operations which has caused substantial damage to the residential houses including religious places like mosque. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the permission has been granted by the concerned respondents in total violation of the direction which has been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that a distance of 1 kilometer can be said to be safe distance between crushing unit and the residential locality. 2.5 It is in this background of the aforestated facts that the petitioners are once again before this Court by way of this petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS :
(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. J.V. Japee, vehemently argued that the authorities concerned in flagrant disregard of the earlier orders passed by this Court have granted permission to start the quarry in favour of Respondent No.6 willfully ignoring and overlooking the objections and representations filed by petitioners and other residents of surrounding area regarding environment related problems.;