BHANDARI, J. - (1.) THIS bunch of writ petitions involves common issues for decision, thus, at the request of all the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter was heard finally and is being decided by this Judgment.
(2.) THE writ petitions, not only involves a challenge to the orders passed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, but the further prayer is that the petitioner-industries should not be closed/shifted to the newly set up industrial areas, unless adequate infrastructure is provided by the RIICO. For the purpose of considering the issues involved in the present matters, it is necessary to refer certain facts material to the case. Looking to the discharge of trade effluent by the textile industries in Pali, a public interest litigation was filed by Manaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti. The said D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 759/2002 was decided by the Division Bench of this Court with the following six directions, which are reproduced for ready reference :- (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 be closed. (ii) The units which are creating pollution shall adopt measures to eliminate pollution. (iii) RIICO shall set up an industrial area at 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 there from 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 period of eight weeks, whereupon the question of payment of compensation by the units on the principle of polluter pays shall be determined. " From perusal of the directions, in the aforesaid case, what necessarily comes out that if any industrial unit is found creating pollution and not connected with the Central Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) shall be closed. The further direction is to adopt measures to eliminate pollution by the Industrial Units concerned, apart from a direction to RIICO to set up industrial area at suitable place, exclusively for textile processing units and direction aforesaid was to carry out by the RIICO within a period of six months. So far as the Trust is concerned, a direction was given for modification of CETP, so that emissions there from are compatible with the norms prescribed by the Pollution Control Board and, importantly, all industrial units were directed to stop discharging industrial pollutant on the land and river. The last direction was regarding assessment of the damage caused to the environment and health. The aforesaid judgment was rendered by the Division Bench of this Court way back in the year, 2004. The judgment aforesaid was rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, after taking note of the fact that due to unarrange setting up of the Industries and untreated discharge of trade effluent, not only ground water is polluted, but it is creating health hazard. The judgment, aforesaid, was, therefore, covering the larger public interest. However, to balance the equities, certain directions were given even to RIICO so that unarranged and unauthorizedly established industries may be established properly in an industrial area. A review petition in the aforesaid case was also filed. However, the same was also decided by this Court vide its judgment dated 14. 05. 2004, keeping in mind the urgent need to stop degradation of environment and the judgment having been passed in the larger public interest, it needs to be complied with. It is stated by the learned counsels for the petitioners that petitioner Industries are ready to shift to the newly set up industrial area, however, in absence of proper facilities, shifting of the industries is not possible. Large number of petitioners made applications for allotment of plots in newly set up industrial area and even part payment has also been given to the RIICO, but RIICO could not provide even basic facilities therein, thus there is no default on the part of the petitioner Industries. It was argued that the industry should not be made to suffer, more so, when the most of the industries involve in these writ petitions are otherwise connected with the CETP. The further prayer is that till the RIICO industrial area is properly established, petitioners' industries should not be closed. Same petitioners even made a prayer that industries set up by them should not be ordered to be shifted as land has been converted for industrial purpose. This Court passed two detailed orders in these cases on 28. 02. 2008 and 04. 03. 2008 in reference to the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Mahaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti (Supra ). In the order dated 04. 03. 2008, this Court shown its satisfaction so far as the effort of RIICO in complying with the directions of the Division Bench is concerned and, otherwise, learned counsel appearing for RIICO submitted that whatever basic facilities are required for an industrial area, to a large extent, the same have already been provided and small shortfall in the the required facilities as provided by the RIICO for an industrial area would otherwise be completed within a period of two months, provided petitioner - industries having given allotment, pays the remaining amount and otherwise occupy the plot of land having already demarcated, so that, by the time facilities as provided by RIICO for industrial area, are completed, petitioner - industries may start their work after seeking all necessary clearances, which includes even clearance from the State Pollution Board. It is submitted that despite of reminders given to the petitioners for payment of the remaining amount, the necessary compliance was not made.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board submitted that the Division Bench, in the case referred to above, having directed to set up an industrial area, exclusively for textile industries, within a period of six months, the industries existing at any place, other than industrial area, cannot be allowed to run, more so when they have not even taken consent order from the Rajasthan State Pollution Board for running their industries, therefore, running of the industries, in the present matter, is otherwise in violation of the provision of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1974') therefore, apart from the decision of the Division Bench, even as per the Act of 1974 no petitioner-industry can be allowed to run, merely for the reason that they are connected with CETP. In fact, petitioner-industries have to shift to industrial area with proper set up of treatment plant of pollution to be discharged, so that no industry may cause pollution and, otherwise, the compliance of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti is to be made. Learned counsel further contended that after the order dated 9. 3. 2004 a meeting was convened on 17. 3. 2004 by various state authorities to work out the modalities for implementation of the said order. In compliance of the decisions taken therein, a survey was conducted on 12. 4. 2004 by the DIC so as to report regarding industries situated in non-conforming areas. A copy of the survey report along with the list of industries situated in non-confirming areas is exist as Annexure-7 to the reply. Thereafter, the respondents undertook the task of strengthening the existing CETPs and ultimately, it was realized that despite increasing the efficiency of the CETPs, it was not possible to treat trade effluent beyond the installed capacity and in fact in order to ensure 100% treatment of the trade effluent, the CETPs were required to run at 70% of their capacity or else untreated effluent would pass. Consequently, in the meeting held under Chairmanship of the then Minister dated 4. 7. 2007 it came to the realized that unless and until industries situated in non- conforming areas are closed and industries situated in conforming areas are made to run as per capacity existing uptil 2004 when the mandamus was issued the CETPs will continue discharging untreated effluent. This meeting was attended by everyone including representatives of textile industries as well as representatives of agriculturists. Point No. 5 in the said minutes that have been annexed in all the writ petitions speaks about reviewing capacity of CETPs. It is lastly contended that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naresh vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1, this Court cannot issue any direction contrary to the judgment given in the case of Mahaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti, having attained finality and, therefore, it was urged that all these writ petitions are not otherwise maintainable. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court reads as under :-      " (C) Constitution of India, Arts. 32 (2), 136, 226, 215 and 19 (1) - Scope of writ - Jurisdiction - Grievance of journalists that judicial order passed by High Court in proceedings inter parties indirectly affected their fundamental rights under Art. 19 (1) (a) and (g) - Judicial decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be said to affect fundamental rights - Remedy is by way of appeal against decision and not writ-petition (Per Majority, M. Hidayatullah, J. Contra.) - Judicial orders passed by High Court in or in relation to proceedings pending before it are not amenable to be corrected by certiorari under Art. 32 (2)(Per Majority, M. Hidayatulla, J. Contra ). In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioners had also produced copies of judgments, wherein similar writ petitions were dismissed, reference of one of such judgment dated 30. 1. 2008 in similar writ petition No. 649/2008 would be relevant. ;