Agriculturists challenged quarry and stone-crushing permissions alleging pollution, crop damage and unsafe proximity. The court found compliance with GPCB guidelines, including the one-kilometre separation from residential areas, and disposed of the PIL without issuing directions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 162 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: Sd/-
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
and
HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
================================================================
| 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? |
Yes |
|---|---|
| 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? | Yes |
| 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? |
No |
| 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? |
No |
================================================================
PRAVINBHAI HANSRAJBHAI DADHANIYA & 2 other(s) Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 8 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance :
MR. AAMIR S PATHAN(7142) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP (99) for the Opponent(s) No. 1, 2 and 5 MR AMIT N PATEL(2749) for the Opponent(s) No. 4 MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Opponent(s) No. 3,6
MR MANRAJ A BAROT(6224) for the Opponent(s) No. 7,8,9
MR VINOD M GAMARA(5910) for the Opponent(s) No. 7,8,9
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
and
HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
Date : 04/09/2019
Page 1 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER)
1. This writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is preferred by the petitioners, who are agriculturists residing in Village: Sheth Vadala, which is adjoining to Village: Sukhpur, Taluka : Jamjodhpur, District: Jamnagar raising serious grievance as regards environmental pollution caused by respondent No.7 and have prayed the following reliefs:-
(A) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 4 granting permission (Consents & Authorization) to the respondent no. 8 & 9 in relation to the mining activities in the quarry for extracting black trap stones at Survey No. 678, Village : Sheth Vadala, Ta: Jamjodhpur, Dist: Jamnagar as the same is contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Haroon Ansari & another Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District reported in AIR 2004 SC 823 as we ll as this Hon’ble Court in Yakubbhai Sharifbhai Aaglodiya Vs. Collector & District Magistrate & Anr. In Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 70/2011 decided on 12.03.2012 and confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sai Quarry & Anr. Vs. Yakubbhai Sharifbhai Aaglodiya in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14815 of 2012 decided on 17.03.2015 providing one kilometer as a safe distance between crushing unit and residential locality and also without making any endeavor or attempt to ensure safety of human inhabitation of the adjoining area and without considering the impact of mining operations upon the agricultural fields or heath and hygiene of the locality and underground water and also in violations of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Page 2 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
account of blasting operations and there is substantial reduction of the underground water and damage to the standing crops.
2. The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ petition could be summarized as under:
2.1 The petitioners are having their agricultural fields in the limits of Village: Sheth Vadala. That respondent Nos.8 and 9 had obtained Consent to Establishment (NOC) from respondent No.4 on 23.09.2010 as well as Consent and Authorization from respondent No.4 on 06.02.2013. It is contended that the concerned authority empowered to grant NOC and Consent and Authorization had granted the same without considering the real impact upon the standing crops of adjoining agricultural fields as well as the impact upon the health and hygiene of agriculturists / residents of the surrounding area. According to them, the concerned authorities have not taken into consideration the facts that on account of the particles of stones spread by operation of the quarry, the standing crops of the agricultural fields in the surrounding areas will be damaged. It is contended that there will be shortage of water on account of the wastage of water in the quarry. It is contended that the concerned authorities have also not taken into consideration the fact that the agricultural labourers, who are residing in the agricultural fields, will be affected by the pollutions created by the operations of the quarry lease. It is the contention of the petitioners that respondents No.4 and 5 have also not taken into consideration that in the close vicinity of the quarry, the residential houses and
Page 3 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
agricultural fields are situated and it would be hazardous for the health and hygiene of the public residing thereof.
2.2 It is contended by the petitioners that the distance between the quarry lease of respondent No.7 and the agricultural fields of Village: Sheth Vadala is nearly 500-600 meters on account of which the standing crops in the agricultural fields get damaged severely and small stones are coming from the quarry lease in the agricultural fields of adjoining area which creates potential risk and hazard to the life and safety of agriculturist / residents and labourers working in the agricultural fields.
2.3 It is contended by the petitioners that the concerned authorities have granted permission to respondent No.7 mechanically without ensuring safety to the residents and agriculturist of the surrounding areas by suggesting some cosmetic measures which are not going to protect the human inhabitation of the surrounding areas.
2.4 It is contended that the authorities have not considered the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Harron Ansari and another Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, AIR 2004 SC 823 . It is contended that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Harron Ansari (supra) has been further reiterated in the case of Yakubbhai Sharifbhai Aaglodiya Vs. Collector & District Magistrate & Others in Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No.70/2011 decided on 12.03.2012 and it was confirmed by the Apex Court wherein it has been observed that one kilo meter is safe distance between the crushing unit and the residential area.
2.5 It is contended by the petitioners that they have made numerous representations before the concerned authorities.
Page 4 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
3. Heard Mr.Aamir Pathan, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No.1, 2 and 5 Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondents No.3 and 6, Mr.Vinod Gamara, learned advocate for respondents No.7 to 9 and Mr.Amit Patel, learned advocate for respondent No.4.
4. Mr.Aamir Pathan, learned advocate for the petitioners has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the distance between the quarry lease and the fields of the petitioners is just 500 – 600 meters and as per the decision of the Apex Court, the quarry lease should be 1 kilometer away from the residential area. According to him, in adjoining fields, the family of the agriculturists and the labourers are residing and, therefore, the quarry lease in question of respondent No.7 has to be closed. According to him, due to such quarry lease of respondent No.7, the agriculturists and residents of the surrounding area are facing and suffering multiple environment problems and exposed to serious risk and hazard to their life and property on account of blasting operation and it damages the standing crops. He has submitted that some damage is being done by the operation of the quarry by respondents No.8 and 9. He has vehemently submitted that the permission for mining given to the private respondents is required to be cancelled. He has submitted that the report of the private laboratory also suggests that there is operation in the area and, therefore also, this Court may allow the present petition. While referring to the documentary evidence and pleadings of the parties, he has vehemently submitted that no permission ought to have been granted to the private respondents for carrying out the work of quarry lease which is just 500-600 away from the agriculture fields of the petitioners and also from adjoining
Page 5 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
fields of other agriculturists. He has prayed to allow the present petition.
5. Per contra, Mr.Amit Patel, learned advocate for respondent No.4 has vehemently submitted that the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) has carried out the inspection as has been contended by the petitioners. He has referred to the contents of the affidavitin-reply filed by the Board and has submitted that everything has been placed on record to suggest that the apprehension of the petitioners has already been redressed and it will be processed and the authority will ensure that no damage is caused to the petitioners by operation of such land. He has submitted that the quarry lease is 3.5 kilometer away from the residential area and the version of the petitioners is false one. Regarding the decision of the Apex Court as to 1 kilometer distance of the quarry lease and the residential area and in the present case, the distance between the quarry lease and residential area of Village : Sheth Vadala, he has submitted that it is almost 3.5 kilometer away from the residential area. He has submitted that to the version narrated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the GPCB, the petitioners have not filed rejoinder affidavit thereof. He has prayed to dismiss the present petition.
6. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No.1, 2 and 5 has submitted that proper care has been taken by the officer of the Board and necessary permission has been granted to carry out the quarry lease to the private respondents after following due procedure and there is no any illegality in sanctioning such permission to the concerned private respondents. He has prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Mr.Vinod Gamara, learned advocate for respondents No.7 to 9 has vehemently submitted that the present writ petition has been
Page 6 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
filed with an ulterior motive. While referring to the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents No.7 to 9, he has submitted that the residential area is 3.5 kilometer away from the present quarry lease and, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners is devoid of merits. He has submitted that there are other quarry lease near the agricultural fields of the petitioners, however, they have not raised any grievance against those quarry owners, whereas, the quarry of the respondents is away from the fields of the petitioners. While referring to the report of the GPCB, he has vehemently submitted that as per the report, there is pollution in the air. He has submitted that the present petition is nothing but a misuse of process of law and it has been filed with a mala fide intention. According to him, the allegation of mala fide intention has been levelled against the petitioners by respondents No.7 to 9 in their affidavit-in-reply. However, those facts have not been controverted by the petitioners by filing any rejoinder affidavit. According to him, the present petition is devoid of merits and the same is required to be dismissed with cost.
8. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Mohammed Haroon Ansari and another Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, A.P. And others, AIR 2004 SC 823 and judgment and order of this Court dated 12.03.2012 in the case of Yakubbhai Sharifbhai Aaglodiya Vs. Collector & District Magistrate rendered in Writ Petition (PIL) No.70 of 2013 .
9. In the case of Mohammed Haroon Ansari (supra), the Apex Court has held and observed in para-8 as under:-
8. We may, at once, notice that the High Court was persuaded by public interest involved in the matter in initiating proceedings on the basis of a letter sent to it. The anxiety of the High Court was further exhibited by its concern in the
Page 7 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
matter in constituting an expert committee and although that Expert Committee stated that a distance of 1 km. is a safe distance between the site under quarry lease and the residential locality or GLSR, but in order to be safer than what the Expert Committee observed, the High Court increased the distance by another 1 km. Particularly when the assessment made by the Center of Mining Environment, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, concluded that there is no impact by the quarry operations carried on by the appellants before us on the GLSR or Osmansagar lake or nearby residential locality, it is unnecessary to impose condition that the distance of 1 km. for carrying out the quarry activities should be converted to 2 km. The affidavit of Pollution Control Board indicates that if proper safeguards are adopted as indicated in the said affidavit, it will not cause any air, water or noise pollution, much less dust articles affect the water supply system in GLSR or Osmansagar lake. We, therefore, direct that the order made by the High Court is modified by directing that the distance of 1 km. is a safe distance between the site of the quarry leases and the residential localities or GLSR or Osmansagar lake. The guidelines issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board specified 1 km. to be safe distance between crusher and human habitation from 17-1-1997. Prior to that it was only 500 meters away from national Highway and 100 meters away from the State Highway, Major District roads and other roads.
10. In view of the aforesaid observations, it appears that there were guidelines issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board specifying 1 kilometer to be safe distance of crushing of stones and human inhabitation. On that basis, the Apex Court has issued the aforesaid directions.
11. On perusal of the decision of this Court dated 12.03.2012 in the case of Yakubbhai Sharifbhai Aaglodiya (Supra) , it appears that while referring to the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court of necessary distance of 1 kilometer from the residential locality, this Court has set aside the order permitting the private respondents to restart the quarry operations. However, the liberty was given to the unit to put up a unit at a distance of 1 kilometer from the residential
Page 8 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
locality after taking necessary permission or consent from the Board. This Court has also issued necessary direction in para-26 which reads as under:-
Copies of present judgment shall be furnished by the Registry to the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Gujarat Pollution Control Board for taking up appropriate action and submission of compliance report within the period and time specified.
12. On the basis of the aforesaid direction, learned advocate for the Gujarat Pollution Control Board has submitted the report of the GPCB for compliance of the aforesaid decision and has produced the guidelines issued by the GPCB, which reads as under:
“ Environmental Guidelines for stone Crushing Unites :
Stone Crushing Industry engaged in producing crushed stones which is the basic raw material for various construction activities such as construction of Roads Highways Bridges, Buildings and Canals etc., is an important industrial sector especially for infrastructure
Page 9 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
projects. This sector, gives rise to substantial quantity of fine fugitive dust emissions which create health hazards to the workers as well as surrounding population by way of causing respiratory diseases. The dust also adversely affects visibility, reduces growth of vegetation and hampers aesthetics of the area.
Stone crushing units are not stand alone crushing units, but stone mining is also associated with this activity; in fact stone mining is the primary and basic activity for the stone crushing units. Therefore, this kind of industrial units need scrutiny while granting permission for environmental and mining operations, especially at the time of NOC (i.e. Consent to Establishment) stage. It should be analyzed in totality i.e. for both activities.
Due to boom in infrastructure sector especially roads, highways and buildings; several stone crushing units are coming up which poses many challenges to maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and achieve the sustainability. This has necessitated for the development of environment guidelines by the GPCB which are as under:
1) Sitting criteria:-
Sitting criteria of new stone crushing units shall be as follows:
| Sr.No | Distance from | Distance |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Class A and above cities; Other cities & towns; villages and approved continuous habitations. |
1 km |
| 2 | Wild Life Sanctuary |
5 km or buffer zone declared for the same |
| 3 | National Highway (from boundary line) |
200 meters |
| 4 | State highway (from boundary line) |
200 meters |
| 5 | Sensitive areas such as educational institute / religious places |
500 meters |
| 6 | Railway (from boundary line) |
200 meters |
Page 10 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
7 River: Identified 200 meters as per Survey of India by name. Canal : main and branch canal Lake : Notified 8 Place of historical 1 Kilo meter importance
2) Installation and operations of stone crushing units:-
→ Each stone crusher unit shall install adequate pollution control measures including erection of G. I. Sheets cover and the sprinklers before commencement of operations.
Dust doom shall be provided in the unit.
→
→ Crusher shall be covered and water sprinkling system shall be provided on crusher to suppress the dust generated due to material handling / loading / unloading activity.
→ Screen classifier shall be adequately covered by G.I. Sheets to prevent the emission into the atmosphere due to screening / grading activity.
→ All conveyor belts shall be adequately covered by G. I. Sheet / M. S. sheet only.
→ Regular wetting of roads shall be carried out to suppress the ground level dust within the premises to control the air borne dust emission due to wind velocity.
All approach roads and ramps shall be metlled.
→
→ Curtain or wall shall be provided surrounding the stone crusher unit.
→ Display board shall be provided at the entrance of stone crusher indicating survey no., name and address of owner and the unit.
→ Fine dust generated due to screening / crushing / grading shall be disposed off into abandoned mines.
3) Environmental standards :-
The standards consist of two parts.
I) Implementation of the following pollution control measures.
1) Dust containment cum suppression system for the equipment.
Page 11 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
2) Construction of wind breaking walls especially at charging hopper & crushing place.
3) Construction of the metalled roads within the premises.
4) Regular wetting of the ground within the premises.
5) Green belt shall be developed along the periphery.
II) Quantitative standard for the SPM.
The suspended particulate matter measured between 3 to 10 meter from any process equipment of a stone crushing unit shall not exceed 600 microgram per m.
Conditions :-
- Stone crushing unit shall have to comply with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and their amendment.
- Stone crushing units shall not be allowed / permitted in sanctuary, National Parks & their eco-sensitive area.
- Stone crushing units shall have to obtain necessary permission of land use from competent Authority.
- Stone crushing Units shall have to comply with the provision of the Wildlife Act 1972 & their amendments.
- Stone crushing Unit shall not be allowed / permitted within 1 Km from the periphery of ancient / Historical monuments & archaeological sites.
13. In view of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the GPCB, it appears that the distance which is mandatory for stone crushing activity is 1 kilometer from the human habitations or the locality. In this case, it is an admitted facts that stone crushing permission was granted to the private respondents in the year 2010 and, thereafter, the GPCB has also carried out necessary inspection thereof. The GPCB has categorically submitted the following facts in para-7 of the
Page 12 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
affidavit-in-reply.
7. It is submitted that contentions raised in para 4.2 to 4.4 of the petition are not fully correct and are denied. In reference to para 4.2 to 4.4, it is submitted that as per the latest inspection report dated 01/09/2015, residential area of the village Sheth Vadala is more than two kilo meter away from the industry of the respondent no. 7 and no residential area is observed near the plant except two small farm huts. Moreover, prevailing wind direction is opposite to the complainer’s farm. It is further submitted that in the said area other stone crushing units named Krishna Stone Crusher is also located. Moreover, mines of Krishna Stone Crusher is situated nearby petitioners agriculture land and mine road of Krishna Stone Crusher is passing adjacent to complainer’s farm. Moreover, mines of the respondent no.7, Swati Stone Crushers are situated on the back side of the mines of Krishna Stone Crusher. It is further submitted that as per the inquiry from the respondent no.7 the blasting activity is carried out once in the month. It is submitted that during the inspection plant was not in operation. However, unit has provided necessary Air pollution control system.”
13.1 The GPCB has also submitted the following facts in para-11 of the affidavit-in-reply.
11. It is submitted that contentions raised in para 6.5 and 6.6 of the petition are not fully correct and are denied. In reference to para 6.5 and 6.6 it is submitted that answering respondent no. 4, Board had issued closure direction u/s.31-A of the Air Act, 1981 due to the reason mentioned in foregoing para 9 of this reply and had revoked the closure direction on representation submitted by the resp. no. 7 dated 09/04/2014 as the resp. no.7 had complied with the point of closure directions. It is submitted that with reference to the representation of complainant dated 17/11/2014, Regional Office of the Board has monitored the industry of resp. no. 7 on 20/01/2015 and non compliance was not noticed. It is submitted that the intimation regarding the same was intimated to the complainant by the Board. It is further submitted that the Board has carried out monitoring on 01/09/2015 and details of the inspection are mentioned in foregoing para no. 7 of this reply.
Page 13 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
14. Thus, from the affidavit-in-reply of the GPCB, it clearly appears that the residential area of Village: Sheth Vadala is more than two kilometer away from the quarry lease of respondent No.7 and no residential area is there near the plant except two small farm huts. This fact has not been controverted by the petitioners by filing any rejoinder. Thus, the guidelines issued by the GPCB is followed in this case and there is no breach of any conditions of the guidelines.
15. Further, the private respondents have filed their affidavit-inreply. Paras 6, 7, 17 and 18 of the affidavit-in-reply are as under:-
6. I say and submit that petitioners herein are brothers of the same family and having their personal interest in this petition because they are having their agricultural land nearby area and none of the villagers have interest in it . Petition is filed only with a view to harass the respondents. Even otherwise there is other Stone Crushers unit is also located.
7. I say and submit that, Swati Stone Crusher had applied Moje Taluka: Jamjodhpur Village: Shethvadala Revenue Survey No. 678/1/2 Paiki 1 admeasuring 4000.00 Square Meter for industrial purpose from Ld. Collector of Jamnagar in the year 2011. And thereafter Ld. Collector by following due procedure of law granted the said land for industrial purpose to Respondent No. 7 (herein referred as “Swati Stone Crushers”) on 27.01.2012 with certain condition.
17. I say and submit that present respondents are also known that petitioners herein had annexed the map of the lease site at Annexure L page no. 100. Wherein petitioners has deliberately annexed copy which was annexed by the present respondents during clearance of lease licence before the Ld. Collector of Jamnagar. And so it is mentioning only with regard to respondent no. 7 site not for other purpose. The present Respondent No. 7 is annexing same site map which was presented by the Respondent No. 7 at Ld. Mamlatdar, Jamjodhpur when Respondent No.7 has applied for stone crushing plant industrial use. It shows other Stone Crushing site too in the same field. Which is much near than the Respondent No.7 Stone Crushing site.
18. I say and submit that the contention taken by the petitioners in the para 4.3 in the petition is totally baseless. Wherein Sarpanch of the Sheth Vadala Gram Panchayat by his certificate dated 22.09.2015 clearly said that the Swati Stone Crushers site is
Page 14 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
almost 3.5 km away from Sheth Vadala Village. And there is no chance for potential risk and hazard to the life and safety of the agriculturist / residents and labourers working in the agricultural field. Actually, there is no such condition in the nearby area.
16. Thus, the factuam of other such units functioning at the nearby place has also been narrated by the private respondents in their defence, which fact has not been controverted by the petitioners. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that the allegation of mala fide is also made against the petitioners. However, the petitioners have not denied the same facts by filing any rejoinder affidavit. Of course, the petitioners have filed additional affidavit with a report of the investigation to show that the particle in the air is excess against the standard prescribed thereof. However, against the additional reply of the petitioners, the private respondents have filed additional affidavit-in-reply producing test certificate i.e. no such excess particles found from the air against prescribed standard. Not only that but respondent No.4 – GPCB has also filed additional affidavit-in-reply in this regard and has submitted that the necessary inspection was carried out by respondent No.4 and the report thereof was prepared. The same report has been placed along with the affidavit which nullify the stands of the petitioners that there is excess particles in the air.
17. Considered the fact that respondents have made averments and allegations against bona fide of the petitioners and allegation made by the respondents regarding mala fide is not controverted by the petitioners. Further, in view of the affidavit-in-replies of respondent No.4 as well as the private respondents, there are other similar nature of stone crushing is functioning near to the fields of the petitioners. It also appears that the petitioners have not produced any details regarding the actual damage caused to them during last many years. It is pertinent to note that the quarry lease
Page 15 of 16
C/WPPIL/162/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
in question is there since 2010 and the GPCB has also carried out necessary inspection and whenever it is found that the unit is not following the guidelines then the necessary directions were also issued and that has been complied with by the private respondents. Further, the unit is also 3.5 kilometers away from the residential area of Village : Sheth Vadala. Therefore, the guidelines of 1 kilo meter away is fulfilled.
18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no direction needs to be issued in this writ petition and this writ petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.
Sd/- (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J)
Sd/- (A. P. THAKER, J)
V.R. PANCHAL
Page 16 of 16
2 issues framed by the court
Did the challenged quarry and stone-crushing operations violate the mandatory one-kilometre distance from human habitation under GPCB guidelines?
Did the alleged pollution and damage to adjoining agricultural fields warrant cancellation of mining permissions or directions stopping operations?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohammed Haroon Ansari and another Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, A.P. And othersExplained¶63
Mohammed Haroon Ansari and another Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, A.P. And others, AIR 2004 SC 823 · Who else cites this
Yakubbhai Sharifbhai Aaglodiya Vs. Collector & District MagistrateRelied on¶64
Yakubbhai Sharifbhai Aaglodiya Vs. Collector & District Magistrate
Sai Quarry & Anr. Vs. Yakubbhai Sharifbhai AaglodiyaReferred¶28
Sai Quarry & Anr. Vs. Yakubbhai Sharifbhai Aaglodiya
PRAVINBHAI HANSRAJBHAI DADHANIYA
STATE OF GUJARAT
Gujarat Pollution Control Board
Swati Stone Crushers
S.R.BRAHMBHATT
A. P. THAKER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
