Dismissed

Sunil Kumar Roy v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Oct 2020WPC/5002/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand refused to accept the withdrawal of a PIL concerning alleged air pollution from a coke oven industry. After observing that the petitioner had a prior criminal dispute with the industry's proprietor and offering to settle a personal score, the court dismissed the petition and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to deposit Rs.10,000/- within two months before the High Court Legal Services Committee.

Sunil Kumar Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand — Environment and Pollution | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (PIL) No. 5002 of 2018

¶3

Sunil Kumar Roy, aged about 56 years, Son of Late Lalji Roy, Resident of Behrakudar, P.O.- Jhaghahi, P.S.- Barora, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶4

… … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. + P.S. and District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶8

The Chairman, Pollution Control Board, Ranchi, Having its offce at CD256, H.E.C. Colony, CTI Colony, Sector-III, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.Dhurwa, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶9

Jitendra Kumar, aged about 50 years, Proprietor of the Jai Durga Coke Industries, Hirak Road, Behrakudar Chowk, Dhanbad, Son of Sri Hari Shankar Agrawal, Resident of Shastri Nagar, Bank More, P.O. and P.S.Bank More, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

¶10

… … ... Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶13

-----For the Petitioner: Mr. Prabhash Chandra Jha, Advocate For the State-respondents: Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, G.A.-II For Resp. No.3-Board: Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate For Resp. No.4: Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate ------ Oral Order 09/Dated: 09.10.2020

¶14

Perused the report submitted by the concerned dated 11.09.2020. Let the same be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side.

¶15

With consent of the parties, hearing of this matter has been done through video conferencing. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality.

¶16

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner as also the respondents including respondent No.4.

¶17

This writ petition in the form of “Public Interest Litigation” has been filed for the following relief: -

¶18

“For direction to enquire about the affairs of the respondent no.4 as air pollution has been occurred by the said industries which runs for manufacturing of coke by way of open oven which is injurious to the local people and it is against the norms of pollution.”

¶19

-2-

¶20

Pursuant to the order dated 08.11.2019 by which notice was issued to respondent No.4 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, respondent No.4 has appeared and filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit respondent No.4 has disclosed that the writ petitioner has tried to settle his personal score against respondent No.4 by misusing the forum of Public Interest Litigation inasmuch as, the respondent No.4 had already filed a criminal case against the writ petitioner Sunil Kumar Roy being Baghmara P.S. Case No.70 of 2007 which was registered on 03.04.2007 for an offence under Sections 147, 149, 448, 342, 321, 325, 307, 385, 386, 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been further stated that the writ petitioner remained in jail custody for more than six months in that case and thereafter he was subsequently released on bail. At this juncture, it has been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that he was later on acquitted of the charges in the year 2017, i.e., prior to filing of the present writ petition. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that again a complaint was made by respondent No.4 to the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad on 28.04.2007 apprehending further violence from the side of the writ petitioner. A copy of the complaint has been brought on record as Annexure-C. On merit, it is stated that respondent No.4 purchased the Coke Plant running in the name & style of M/s. Jai Durga Coke Industries and after purchase, he obtained ‘Consent to operate’ from the competent authorities under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. N.O.C. was also granted by the Pollution Control Board on 24.11.2000. On 20.03.2017 the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board granted consent under Section 25 of the aforesaid Act and the plant was being maintained as per the directions of the Pollution Control Board. Such ‘Consent to operate’ and the N.O.C. have been brought on record as Annexure-D series. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that N.O.C./Consent to operate granted by the competent authority is valid from 20.03.2017 to 31.03.2021 by the document which has been brought on

¶21

-3-

¶22

record as Annexure-E. It has been alleged in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit that the writ petitioner Sunil Kumar Roy, with the help of some villagers, had been taking steps for extorting money by threatening respondent No.4 and the matter was reported by respondent No.4 before the competent authority of the Police Department. It has been reiterated that no violation of any law has been done by respondent No.4. It has been lastly alleged that for putting further pressure upon respondent No.4 for extorting money, the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, in place of responding to the counter affidavit, has today proposed to withdraw this writ petition on instruction. However, this intention of withdrawal emboldens the stand taken by respondent No.4 that this Public Interest Litigation has been purposely filed for settling private score and not filed bona fidely in the interest of public.

¶24

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we would not allow this Public Interest Litigation to be withdrawn rather we are dismissing it with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the writ petitioner before the High Court Legal Services Committee within two months from today.

¶25

Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶26

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶27

Manoj/Raman

Sunil Kumar Roy v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Roy v. the State of Jharkhand

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

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Environment Forest and Climate Change Vs Laljit Prasad Sinha

The State of Jharkhand Vs Ramphal Singh

The State of Jharkhand Vs Ramphal Singh

Shailesh Poddar Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Isak Vs the Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

Gouri Shankar Jain Vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways