- (1.) In all the above writ petitions, common controversy is involved, therefore, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1186/2010, Nandu Dyeing, Bajrang Bari, Pali through its Partners vs. Rajasthan State Industrial & Investment Corporation Ltd. & Anr., are taken into consideration for discussion upon facts and law. The precise controversy involved in all above writ petitions is with regard to rejection of the applications of the respective petitioners for allotment of plots in RIICO industrial area, Punayata, Pali. In a PIL writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 759/2002, filed by Mahaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti, certain directions were issued by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.03.2004 whereby the State Pollution Control Board was directed to make fresh inspection of the textile processing units of Pali and surrounding area and, in case, any of the units is found to be creating pollution and not connected with CETPs the same was directed to be closed. Further, it is ordered by the Division Bench that respondent (herein) RIICO shall set up an industrial area at a suitable place within a period of six months exclusively for textile processing units which must be located at an appropriate distance from the residential areas and the industry shall be shifted to the newly developed industrial area from residential areas immediately thereafter. Following directions were issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the said writ petition: I. The Pollution Control Board shall immediately make fresh inspection of the Textile Processing Units at Pali and surrounding areas and in case any of the units are found to be creating pollution and not connected to the CETPs shall he closed. II. The units which are creating pollution shall adopt measures to eliminate pollution. III. RIICO shall set up an industrial area at a suitable place exclusively for textile processing units. The industrial area must be located at an appropriate distance from residential areas. RIICO shall set up the industrial area within a period of six months and the industry shall be shifted to the industrial area from residential areas immediately thereafter. IV. The Trust shall make modification in the CETPs so that the emissions therefrom are compatible with the norms prescribed by the Pollution Control Board. V. The industrial units which are discharging the industrial pollutant on the land or/and river shall be closed forthwith. VI. The State shall employ experts to assess the damage caused to the environment and health of the public by the pollution created by the units. On assessment of the damage, the concerned authority shall file a report in this Court within a period of eight weeks, thereupon the question of payment of compensation by the units on the principle of polluter pays shall be determined.
(2.) Similarly, a bunch of writ petitions were decided vide judgment dated 11.4.2008 along with SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6954/2007 (Aruna Mills, Pali vs. State & Ors.), by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in which, while disposing of 125 writ petitions following observation/direction was made: If the matter is viewed even from another angle to consider the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners to allow petitioners' industries to work in an area other than industrial area, following serious consequences exists:- (i) Continuance of the industries would then be in violation of direction No. 3 of the Division Bench in the case of Mahaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti. (ii) None of the petitioners-industry is having consent from the Rajasthan Pollution Board, therefore, continuance of those industries would then be in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1974 and, in those circumstances, this Court is not competent to permit any industry to run in violation of the provisions of law. In view of the above, no petitioner-industry can be allowed to operate during the intervening period if it is operating not only contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench, but also contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1974. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly with the directions to the parties to abide by the directions otherwise specifically given above.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that after directions issued by the Division Bench and learned Single Judge of this Court, an industrial area was developed in Punayata industrial area, Pali by the respondent RIICO in compliance of the directions issued by this Court, in which, applications were invited for allotment of plots. The petitioners' units were situated in non conforming area, therefore, closed as per directions of the Division Bench and, for that purpose, a notice under Section 33A of the Act of 1974 was issued by the Pollution Control Board directing the petitioners to close the respective units.;