Disposed

Shri Ramesh Chandrikaprasad Pathak and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2012WP/7956/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay HC directed the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to consider representations from residents and neighbors, and the respondent's promise to shift the unit, before deciding on consent renewal, and to act against non-compliance by Nov 2012.

What did the court decide?

Directed MPCB to consider representations and commitments before renewing consent and to act against the unit by Nov 30, 2012 if consent is not granted/renewed.

Shri Ramesh Chandrikaprasad Pathak and Anr. Vs the… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2012)

kambli

wp-7956.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7956 OF 2012

¶7

Shri Ramesh Chandrikaprasad Pathak and another

¶8

...Petitioners

¶9

v/s.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶11

Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar for petitioners. Mr.Prashant Darandale, AGP for State.

¶12

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 24 September 2012

¶13

P.C.

¶14

The learned counsel for petitioners states that the petitioners are having their residential unit on the plot of land adjacent to the plot of land earlier belonging to respondent No.5-Mr.Nirmalsing Diwansing Bhoi, on which respondent No.3-Dhanashree Engineering Works has installed a ready mix concrete cement plant. Petitioners' grievance is about air pollution being generated by the industrial unit of respondent No.3. The learned counsel points out that the residents of area had submitted a representation to the Sub-Regional Officer of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Tarapur, District-Thane (Exhibit”H” to the petition, page 59) and the MPCB had on

1 Of 4

kambli

wp-7956.12

18 April 2012 and even prior thereto on 2 March 2012 and 29 March 2012 brought the said complaint to the notice of respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 had agreed to shift their unit to a suitable location and informed the Secretary of the Union Park Phase-I Co.op.Housing Society Ltd., which had made the complaint, that respondent No.3 would shift its concrete mixing unit to said suitable location within 90 days or by 30 June 2012 (whichever is earlier). Even in that period, respondent No.3 had agreed to operate the plant without causing any disturbance.

¶20

The learned counsel for petitioners submits that despite the aforesaid assurance, respondent No.3 continues to run cement mixing plant at the same place and still the MPCB is not taking any action against respondent No.3.

¶21

The learned counsel for petitioners also invites our attention to the order dated 20 July 1982 of the Collector, Thane granting N.A. Permission, in which clause 31 provided that “the plot in question shall be used only for small scale nonpolluting, non-hazardous industry.”

¶22

We also found from the consent letter dated 20 April 2012 issued by MPCB that the consent to operate granted for manufacturing 300 ton of Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) is only for the period up to 31 October 2012.

2 Of 4

kambli

wp-7956.12

In view of the above, we direct the respondent No.2MPCB to take into consideration the representations made by Union Park Phase-I CHS and also to be made by the petitioners, who are having the residential units in the neighborhood of the factory of respondent No.3, which petitioners may make within two weeks from today. Before taking any decision about extension or otherwise of the consent to operate, the MPCB shall also take into consideration the assurance given by respondent No.3 by letter dated 2 April 2012 (Exh.K to the petition), that respondent No.3 shift its factory to another location by 30 June 2012.

¶28

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in terms of the following directions:-

¶29

(i) The petitioners shall make a representation to respondent No.2-Maharashtra Pollution Control Board within two weeks from today.

¶30

(ii) MPCB shall take into consideration the said representation as well as the representation made by Union Park Phase-I CHS, and the fact that Theem college of engineering is being run in the vicinity of the unit of respondent No.3 and also that by letter dated 2 April 2012 the respondent No.3 agreed that it shall shift the unit within 90 days; before taking any decision on the question of extension or otherwise of the consent given to respondent No.3 by consent letter dated 2 April 2012 (Exhibit “O” to the petition).

3 Of 4

kambli

wp-7956.12

(iii) In case, MPCB decides not to grant or renew the consent in favour of respondent No.3 at the present site, respondent No.2-MPCB shall take necessary action against the unit of respondent No.3, in accordance with law, by 30 November 2012.

¶36

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶37

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶38

4 Of 4

Shri Ramesh Chandrikaprasad Pathak and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ramesh Chandrikaprasad Pathak and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck @ Jer Jawahar Thadani and Anr. Vs Maharukh M. Oomrigar and 5 Ors.

1. Shri Aslam Shaikh and Ors. Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abhay Madhukar Murkhe Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Vardhman Developers Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gopalbhai T.Rathod Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.and 3 Ors.

Mohan Tukaram Suryawanshi Vs Abhishekh Bhauso Patil and Ors.