Dismissed

Sushil Kamalnayan Bharuka v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2011WP/5110/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order regarding a chemical factory. After reviewing expert reports confirming compliance with mandatory conditions, the Court directed the Pollution Control Board to conduct quarterly inspections instead of shutting down the unit.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Board to ensure quarterly inspection of the factory premises and maintain records.

Sushil Kamalnayan Bharuka Vs the State of Mah and… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

wp5110.09

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.5110 OF 2009

¶6

Sushil s/o Kmalnayan Bharuka,
R/o-Agrawal Plaza, Apana Bazar,
Aurangabad.

¶7

...PETITIONER.

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Secretary, M.P.C.B.
 Mantralaya, Mumbai,

¶10

2) The Member Secretary, Kalpatru Point, 2nd floor,

¶11

 Opp. to Cineplanet, Near Sion Circle,
 Sion (E), M.P.C.B., Mumbai-400 022,

¶12

3) The Regional Officer,
 Paryavaran Bhavan,
 Plot No.A-4/1, MIDC,
 Chikalthana, Behind Dainik Lokpatra,
 Near Seth Nandlal Dhoot Hospital,
 Jalna Road, Aurangabad,

¶13

4) M/s. Sarak Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
 Village Maliwada, Nashik Road,
 Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS.

¶15

wp5110.09

¶16

¶17

...

¶18

 Shri.P.A. Kulkarni Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri.S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent
 No.1.
 Shri.U.B. Bondar Advocate for Respondent
 No.2 and 3
 Shri.A.V. Ghuge Advocate for Respondent
 No.4.

¶19

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.

¶20

 DATE : 8TH DECEMBER, 2011.

¶21

PER COURT :

¶22

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

2.The Petitioner claims to have purchased

¶24

agricultural land at Maliwada, Tq. and Dist-

¶25

Aurangabad, bearing Gut No.10, 11 and 85, near the
Respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 manufactures

¶26

Ferric Alum. The Petitioner has challenged the
order passed by Respondent No.2 - Maharashtra
Pollution Control Board (for short "Board") dated
28th March, 2008. The Petition was filed on 8th

¶27

wp5110.09

¶28

¶29

June, 2009.

¶30

3.Consequent to notice issued, Respondents
filed reply. The matter was heard from time to
time. Respondent No.2 Board filed expert report.

¶31

The last report submitted by the Board is dated
23rd September, 2011.

¶32

4.In substance, learned counsel Shri.

¶33

Kulkarni appearing for the Petitioner submits that

¶34

Respondent No.4 failed to comply with the
mandatory directions issued by the Board which

¶35

were condition precedent to allow Respondent No.4
to re-start manufacturing activities. The Board
had clarified that in case of failure to comply

¶36

with the conditions, the Board will have no option
than to issue appropriate final directions. The

¶37

learned counsel submits that as Respondent No.4
did not comply with all the directions, the

¶38

Respondent No.4 factory unit is required to be
closed down. In support of his submission, the

¶39

wp5110.09

¶40

¶41

learned counsel for Petitioner placed reliance on
the reported Judgment in the case of Indian
Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India
and others, 2011 (7) SCALE Page No.768.

¶42

5.Learned counsel Shri. Bondar appearing

¶43

for Board submits that the inspection of the
Respondent No.4 unit was carried out by the
experts of the Board and it was found that by and
large, essential conditions stipulated under the
order were complied with by the Respondent No.4
unit. The well water in the adjacent lands of the
Petitioner's land was found contaminated. But
according to the counsel, this contamination
process started much earlier and would continue to
be in the process for some more period. The
counsel submits that in view of the compliance
made by Respondent No.4, the further directions in
this regard are not required to be issued by the
Board.

¶44

wp5110.09

¶45

¶46

6.Shri. Ghuge, learned counsel appearing
for Respondent No.4 submits that the Petition is
actuated by ulterior motive. The Petitioner is not
raising objections to the units which are situated

¶47

in the surrounding area. The directors of
Respondent No.4 had taken abundant precaution to
comply with the instructions and orders issued by
the Board. As of now, according to the counsel,
the directors of Respondent No.4 have complied
with all the conditions stipulated in the order.

¶48

7.We have perused the record, Judgments and

¶49

orders placed before us, considered the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties. We have perused the
latest report dated 23rd September, 2011 submitted
by the Board. The Petitioner's concern that his

¶50

property, crop shall not be damaged due to
violation of pollution laws, is a genuine concern.
The Board was directed to inspect the premises of
Respondent No.4 and accordingly Board inspected

¶51

wp5110.09

¶52

¶53

the premises near-about three times during the
pendency of this Petition. The counsel for the
Board is now satisfied that the essential
conditions for running the factory were found to
have been complied with. In the facts of the case,
in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction,
we are not inclined to further investigate into
the questions of facts, as the expert report is
placed before this Court. We are not addressing
the issue in respect of the contentions raised by
the learned counsel for the Petitioner that crops
in the field of the Petitioner got damaged and
well water is already contaminated. The Petitioner
contended that due to this, he has suffered
monetary loss. These contentions are denied by
Respondent No.4. If advised, the Petitioner is at
liberty to resort to appropriate remedies of
claiming damages as permissible in law. We express
no opinion on the said issue.

¶54

8.In the facts of the case, we direct the

¶55

wp5110.09
7

¶56

Board to have quarterly inspection of the
Respondent No.4 factory premises and maintain the
record. If necessary, the Board may also issue
instructions to Respondent No.4 from time to time.
Respondent No.4 shall allow the Board Authorities
to inspect the premises without any obstructions.
In case the Board is of the view that in future
essential conditions are violated, then the Board
is entitled to resort to appropriate remedies as
per the provisions of law. With these
observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶57

[T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶58

asb/DEC11

Sushil Kamalnayan Bharuka v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kamalnayan Bharuka v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangesh Prataprao More Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Krishna Nago Choudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ashfaq Mohammad Isaq Shaikh Vs the Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Vaibhav Subhash Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rashtriya Shikshan Samiti Nanded Vs the Education Officer Secondary Z P Nanded and Ors.

Jalna District Central Co. Op Bank Ltd. Vs Ashok Sitaram Kodande