- (1.) With the closure of their stone crushers, with the threat to their right to livelihood, the petitioners, the owners of the stone crushers, have rushed to this Court for protection. Since through these petitions, the petitioners have challenged two orders, both dated 04.02.2010, passed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board ('the Board', for short), these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, the facts from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2593/2010 Bahubali Stone Crusher v. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, are being narrated hereinafter.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner-firm that it had established an industrial unit for production of grit stone at village Bolkhera, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur. The petitioner-firm was not only duly registered with the Board, but vide order dated 15.05.2004, the Board had granted the consent to operate to the petitioner-firm for its unit. The said consent was valid till 30.04.2009. From 15.05.2004 till 15.03.2008, the petitioner claims that it had been running its unit in accordance with the requirement of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 ('the Act', for short), and according to the conditions imposed by the Board. However, the District Collector, Bharatpur had constituted a Committee for inspecting the various stone crushers operating in the Bharatpur District. According to the report of the said Committee, certain deficiencies were discovered at the petitioner's unit. Therefore, the Board issued a notice dated 15.03.2008, under Section 21(4) of the Act, wherein certain deficiencies were pointed out, and it was indicated by the Board that it is likely to revoke the consent to operate unless the deficiencies pointed out were not addressed to. Immediately on 27.03.2008, the petitioner filed its preliminary objections and requested that the copy of the inspection report be given to it so that it could file a substantial reply. Despite the fact that the copy of the inspection report was not given to the petitioner, on 29.03.2008, the petitioner still filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice.
(3.) From 29.03.2008 till 02.01.2009, i.e. for almost ten months, the Board maintained a studied silence over the entire issue. However, on 02.01.2009, the Board issued another notice to the petitioner. This notice was under Section 31A of the Act. The Board pointed out another set of deficiencies and threatened to revoke the consent order and to direct the closure of the unit. Again the petitioner requested that the relevant documents, on which the Board was relying upon for issuing the said notice, should be supplied to it. However, even this request fell on deaf ears.;