Disposed

Dilip Kumar Bhagat v. Chief Secretory

Jharkhand HC12 May 2015WPC/7408/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition challenged the operation of sponge iron industries in Marar without environmental No Objection Certificates. The Court expressed surprise at the lack of NOCs despite polluting units and directed the SPCB to take action against erring units under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention of Pollution & Control) Act, 1981. The matter was disposed of upon the SPCB's assurance of action.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the SPCB to look into units operating without No Objection Certificates and ensure appropriate action is taken under Section 21 of the Air Act, 1981.

Dilip Kumar Bhagat Vs Chief Secretory — Environment and Pollution | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (PIL) No.7408 of 2013

¶3

Dilip Kumar Bhagat, son of Raj Kumar Bhagat, resident of Marar, P.O and P.S. and District – Ramgarh …... …...... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. -Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi 2.Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O & P.S. and District Ramgarh 3.Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, T.A. Division Building (Ground Floor), HEC Campus Dhurwa, P.O.& P.S. Dhurwa, District -Ranchi

¶6

4.Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, T.A. Division Building (Ground Floor), HEC Campus Dhurwa, P.O.& P.S. Dhurwa, District -Ranchi

¶7

….. …... ….... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT

¶9

-----For the Petitioner : M/s A.K. Sahani, Vikesh Kumar,Adv. For the State : JC to AAG For the State Pollution Control Board : Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate

¶10

07/ Dated:12th May, 2015 Per Virender Singh, C.J.:

¶11

Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that several sponge iron industries situated in Marar Industrial Area of District Ramgarh have been made operational in connivance with the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (for short, SPCB) without taking No Objection Certificate from the SPCB and all these industries are polluting the surrounding areas as depicted in Paragraph-10 of the petition.

¶12

Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the S.P.C.B. while drawing the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by one Mahendra Mahto, Member Secretary, SPCB, Ranchi states that industries falling in the area of Ramgarh and its surrounding places, as depicted in Paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit which play the major role in polluting the area around Ramgarh township, have been made operational only after all those units were checked by the task force consisting of the District Mining Officer, Mining Inspector, the representative of the Deputy Commissioner and the Scientific Assistant of SPCB with other

¶13

concerned officials.

¶14

According to Mr. Pandey, all these units have installed all the pollution control devices including Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) with their kiln stack to control dust emission. He states that these industries have also installed online stack monitoring system. Even the Bag filters at different pollution generating sources have also been installed by these units at cooler discharge, product separation, storage bin, etc. Therefore, the emission from all these units have come down within the prescribed limit i.e. 100 mg/Nm^3.

¶15

With regard to certain units, which are operating without obtaining No Objection Certificates from the SPCB, according to Mr. Pandey complaints have been filed against them by the Regional Officer of the Board. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the list containing the names of all those units against whom the complaints have been filed or to be filed.

¶16

We are surprised as to why all these units, which have not obtained No Objection Certificates from the SPCB are still allowed to continue, whereas if any industrial unit violates any of the restrictions on use of the industrial plants, as contained in Section 21 of the Air (Prevention of Pollution & Control) Act, 1981, the concerned authority is empowered to close the said unit. Mr. Pandey states that the SPCB shall look into this aspect and would ensure that appropriate action is taken against those erring units in accordance with law.

¶17

Mr. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that this redresses the grievance of the petitioner as projected in this petition at this stage and nothing survives in it for prosecute if any further.

¶18

Disposed of accordingly.

¶19

Copy of the order shall be provided to the learned counsel for both the sides.

¶20

(Virender Singh, C.J.)

¶21

(P.P. Bhatt, J.)

¶22

Anu/SI

Dilip Kumar Bhagat v. Chief Secretory

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Bhagat v. Chief Secretory

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

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner through Sri Jay Kumar Vs Ms Telco Transport Companies Association through Its Executive Officer Mahesh Sharan and Ors.

Ms Tata Motors Limited through Its Constituted Attorney Telco Sri Praveen Kumar Singh Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr.

Jamal Mian And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Raju Kumar Vs Home Department

Prem Sanatan Ghosh Vs Collectariate

Dr Shashi Bhusan Prasad Singh Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.