M/S. MAA DAKHINAKALI STONE CRUSHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Advocate and learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order under Annexure-15 to the writ petition and further to allow the petitioner to operate the stone quarry at village Biruda over plot No.3410, 3412, 3413 and 3416 respectively urging various facts and leg a l contentions.

(3.) Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the aforesaid order passed by the Pollution Control Board for the reason that the crusher unit of the petitioner is situated within the citiging criteria of 375 mtrs. from village Biruda which is notified in the notification dated 13.5.1998 issued by the Forest and Environment Department, Government of Orissa wherein it has been stated that no stone crusher unit shall be allowed to establish and function within one kilometer from town or village boundary. The same was challenged before the appellate authority in Appeal No 17-A/T of 2006 The appellate authority on the basis of notification examined the correctness of the order of closure passed by the Pollution Control Board and considered the decision of this Court in the case of Rama Chandra Singh v. State of Orissa and others, decided on 5.2.2004 in W.P.(C) No 5801 of 2003, wherein this Court taken serious note of the siting criteria conditions stipulated in the notification for establishment of the crusher unit. The correctness of the same is questioned wherein the finding recorded by the Pollution Control Board that the unit of the petitioner is situated within 375 mtrs. from village Biruda which is without any report. On the other hand, the letter of the Tahasildar, Nayagarh dated 8.11.2007 has reported that the distance of the unit is situated within one kilometer from the road and therefore the finding recorded by the Pollution Control Board accepted by the appellate authority is erroneous The said contention of the Tahasildar Nayagarh as averred in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit is not supported by any report of the competent authority. Further, the Tahasildar has reported that the exact aerial distance of the crusher unit from the village Biruda cannot be ascertained at his end as there is hillocks between the unit and village. Therefore, the findings recorded by the appellate authority not supported by any report is erroneous. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and further it is contended that after the closure order is passed, the same is affirmed by the appellate authority, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the Pollution Control Board for granting sanction order in relation to the other crusher units in the same locality. Therefore, there is discrimination on the part of the Pollution Control Board in passing the closure order in respect of the petitioner's unit and allowing the other similarly placed persons to establish their crusher units and carry on the crusher activities is in gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.