Dismissed

Adv. Krunal Ananta Adhikari and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary of Ministry of Environment, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2014PIL/121/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a PIL concerning chemical industries in Thane district. The court accepted affidavits from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board stating that instances had been closed, permission to restart was issued after compliance, and no further directions were necessary as of the judgment date.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation is rejected as no further directions are required in light of the action taken by the MPCB.

Adv. Krunal Ananta Adhikari and Ors. Vs State of… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

pil-121.11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.121 OF 2011

¶5

Adv. Krunal Ananta Adhikari and Another. .. Petitioners Vs State of Maharashtra and Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Mrs. Preeti b. Walimbe i/by Shri Bhushan A. Walimbe for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 4. Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ DATED : 15TH SEPTEMBER 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the

¶11

learned counsel appearing for the second and third Respondents and the learned AGP for the first and fourth Respondents.

¶12

The grievance in this Public Interest Litigation is as regards the illegalities committed by the Chemical Industries in the villages Mharal, Varap and Kamba, Taluka – Kalyan, District – Thane. Essentially a direction was sought against the second Respondent -the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board ( for short “MPCB”). By an order dated 3^rd October 2012, this Court directed the MPCB to take appropriate measures keeping in mind the allegations made in the Petition against the concerned Chemical Industries and thereafter, to proceed in accordance with law. The order dated 31^st October 2012

¶13

ash 2 pil-121.11

¶14

records that the notices were issued to the Chemical Industries for breach of the conditions. The order dated 1^st March 2013 records the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the MPCB that the closure orders have been already passed in respect of the four Industries out of five. This Court noted the contention raised by the Petitioners that the Industries have not been actually closed down. The first affidavit in reply dated 21^st March 2013 refers to the inspection reports and the notices issued to the erring Industries. It also refers to the interim directions issued by the MPCB. The second affidavit is dated 30^th April 2014 filed by Shri Bhagwan Piraji Solunke, the Regional Officer of the second Respondent- MPCB. Further steps taken by the second Respondent MPCB have been noted in the said affidavit. It is pointed out that M/s.A.S.Chemopharma Pvt. Ltd. at Kamba complied with the interim directions and, therefore, the order of re-start was issued. It is pointed out that a visit by the officials of the MPCB was made on 3^rd March 2014 and it was found that the production was within the consented limits. As regards the factory of the same Company M/s. A.S. Chemopharma Pvt. Ltd at Mharal, it is recorded that there was a compliance made with the interim directions issued by the MPCB. There was a site visit made on 3^rd March 2014 by the officials of the Board. It is stated that the said Industries have been permitted to re-start the activities. As regards M/s. Harsh Fine Chemicals, the stand of the MPCB is similar that after compliance was

¶15

ash 3 pil-121.11

¶16

made by the said Industry with the interim directions, permission to restart has been issued. As regards M/s. Jetson Chemicals Private Limited, it is stated that the said company has upgraded the ETP and has proposed to install sand filter and carbon filter. It is stated that the factory has also repaired the storage tanks. Necessary documents have been annexed to the said affidavit. Both the affidavits of the second Respondent show that the action has been initiated by the second Respondent in accordance with law against the erring Industries and after ensuring compliances by the Industries, they have been permitted to re-start the operations. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners have not instructed her to file any affidavit-in-rejoinder dealing with the affidavit dated 30^th April 2014 of Shri Solunke.

¶17

Therefore, the statements made in the affidavit of Shri Solunke, the Regional Officer of the second Respondent will have to be accepted. In view of the action taken by the second Respondent as set out in both the affidavits, as of today, it is not necessary to issue any directions in this Public Interest Litigation.

¶18

In the event any breach is committed by the Industries, the Petitioners can always bring it to the notice of the MPCB of the breaches committed by them.

ash

pil-121.11

Subject to what is observed above, the Public Interest

¶23

Litigation is rejected.

¶24

(G.S.KULKARNI, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

Adv. Krunal Ananta Adhikari and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary of Ministry of Environment, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adv. Krunal Ananta Adhikari and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary of Ministry of Environment, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhakar S/O Dattatray Karajgar Vs State of Mah. Thr. the Town Planner and Ors.

Tariq Ahmed Azizoddin Farukki Vs the State of Maharashtra through Th Secretary Revenue and Forests Department, Mumbai and Others

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dattatraya Kondaji Kale Vs Union of India and Ors.

Annay Bhrashtachar Nivaran Janhit Samiti, Ahmednagar Vs the Union of India and Another

Mohanlal Motilal Bhandari Vs Election Commissioner of India, New Delhi and Ors.

Shri. Ajit Sakharam Kandar and Anr. Vs the States of Maharashtra and Ors.

Lakhan S/O Sahadeo Malik and Another Vs Collector, Washim and 2 Others

Smt. Bharati Prakash Gala Vs the Thane Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Anr.

City and Industrial Corporation of Maharashtra Limited Vs Mrs. Mangala Raghupati Gawade

Mr. Deepak Dhanusukhlal Vanjara Vs Rasila D/O. Ranchhoddas Naram (Thakkar)

Granth Mtira Vilash Shah Sarvajanik Library Shingoli, through President, Shri. Nitin v. Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Dept and Ors.

Sushma Digambar Lokegaonkar Vs the State of Maharastra, through Tahsildar

Granth Mtira Vilash Shah Sarvajanik Library Shingoli, through President, Shri. Nitin v. Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Dept and Ors.