The High Court, medium bench, dismissed an appeal against an order refusing to vacate an interim stay on a Collector's seizure of machinery. It found no reason to interfere as prima facie evidence showed pollution levels were within tolerance limits.
Appeal dismissed; interim stay on Collector's seizure order remains unaffected at this stage.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 504/2021
Pramod Soni S/o Deendayal Soni, Aged About 53 Years, Sunaron Ka Mohalla, Merta City, District Nagaur.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Samdariya.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
18/10/2021
This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 899/2020.
The respondent no. 6 herein, was the original writ petitioner. In the petition, he had challenged the order passed by the District Collector, Nagaur dated 23.12.2019 ordering seizure of the
(2 of 3)
[SAW-504/2021]
petitioner’s machinery and directed stopping the commercial activities carried out by the petitioner since long. The learned Single Judge passed an ex-parte interim order on 20.01.2020, which reads as follows:-
“It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier on a complaint made under Section 133 Cr.P.C., the S.D.O., Merta rejected the application holding no nuisance was being created. However, on repeated complaints made against the petitioner by the same person, again a report (Annex.15) was obtained, which indicated that there was no nuisance, but on one more complaint made, an ex-parte report from the S.D.O., Nagaur was obtained, who also simply suggested certain measures, however, did not indicate any nuisance. However, relying on the said report, the Collector vide order dated 23.12.2019 (Annex.17)has ordered for seizure of petitioner's works though in the report it has come on record that several other commercial activities were going on in the area, based on the said direction by order dated 13.01.2020, the petitioner has been directed to close down the work.
In view of the submissions made, issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application also, returnable within four weeks.
Notices when issued be given ‘dasti’ to learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the meanwhile and till further orders, effect and operation of the orders dated 23.12.2019 (Annex.17) and 13.01.2020(Annex.18) shall remain stayed.”
The appellant herein, originally respondent no. 6, thereafter approached the learned Single Judge by filing an application seeking vacation of interim order dated 20.01.2020. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, after hearing both the sides, refused to vacate the interim relief, upon which this appeal has been filed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we see no reason to interfere. It prima-facie appears that the Pollution Control Board had verified
(3 of 3)
[SAW-504/2021]
the noise decibel level caused by the petitioner’s industry as well as the air pollution. After being satisfied that the noise as well as the air pollution caused by the petitioner’s industry is within the tolerance level, permissions were granted. The record would suggest that the appellant herein had made multiple complaints in the past which were turned down. It was much later, that the Collector, on the basis of the report of SDM, passed an order which has been challenged by the petitioner in the main petition. The reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 20.01.2020 are convincing and elaborate.
Under the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.
It is however clarified that our observations are made only for dealing with the interim stage of the matter and would not cast any shadow on the issues at the time of final disposal of the petition.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
(AKIL KURESHI),CJ
18-jayesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the single Judge's order refusing to vacate the interim stay on the Collector's seizure order.
Whether the recorded reasons for the interim stay are sufficient to prevent interference at this stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pramod Soni
State Of Rajasthan
Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Merta City
Nagar Palika Mandal, Merta City
District Collector, Nagaur
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur
AKIL KURESHI
SANDEEP MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
