Remanded

M/s. Meher Stone Crusher v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Dec 2022WP/23003/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a Writ petition filed by a stone crusher unit proprietor challenging refusal of consent for operation. The Court directed Respondent authorities to re-examine the matter and pass a fresh decision considering updated environmental guidelines issued by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board, mandating a fresh representation within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 3 and 4 to re-examine the matter and pass a fresh decision within four weeks after considering new guidelines and giving a hearing.

M/s. Meher Stone Crusher Vs The State of Telangana — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32ss l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 23003 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Meher Stone Crusher, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri. B.Vidyasagar^Rao S/o.Ganga Rao, Age 74^years, Occ. Business, F/o.Sy.No.'186,^Vishnathpet Village, Nirmal Mandal, Dist. Nirmal.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, EFS and T Department, secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶13

The Telangana State Pollution Control Board, lndustrial Estate, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Member Secretary.

¶14

The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, RC Puram, Sangareddy.

¶15

The Envionrmental Engineer, Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Having its Regional Office at D.No.6-2-',l66/4, Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or orders setting aside'the orders passed in Appeal No.17 of 2016 dt 16.11.2021 on the file of Appellate . Authority Under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 as being arbitrary, vindictive, illegal violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and against to the principles of Natural Justice, and consequently direct the Respondents to

¶18

issue CFO (Consent For Operation) permitting the petitioner to run his manufacturing unit

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the closer order^passed by the respondent No.2 in^proceeding bearing No. NZB-750/TS PCB/ZOIRCP I LH|2O22-80, dt 1 8.04.2022^pend ing d isposal of the above writ^petition

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the orders passed by 4th respondent in Lr. No. 2296IPCB/RONZB/ADB/2016, dated. 08.06.2016 and consequential orders in Appeal No.17 of 2016 dt 16.11.2021 on the file of Appellate Authority Under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 19Bl pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2,3.&4 : Mr. M.Nethan Reddy, Rep by Mr. Pranav Munigala, (Addl. SC FOR TSPCB)

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HO B AN

¶28

AND

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶30

W.P.No. 23003 of 2022

¶31

OR ER:^per tte Hoa'bh the ChieJJattice UXat Bhayr)

¶32

FIeard Mr. K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and lvk MNethan Reddy, leamed counsel representing Mr. Pranav Munigala, Iearned Additionai Standing C-ounsel for Telangana State Pollution C-ontrol Board i.e., respondents No.2, 3 and 4.

¶33

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the C-onstitution of India for quashing of order dated 08.06.2016 passed by respondent No.4 as well as the order dated 16.fl.2A2t passed by the appellate authority affirming the order dated 08.06.2016.

¶34

Petitioner before us is lvlls Meher Stone Crusher represented by its Proprietor- Sri B.Vidlasagar Rao. It is situated^at Viswanathpet, Nirrnal and is carrying on its business^{activities of} manufacturing stone chips ,tc., in land bearing survey^{No.186 on} license being issued by Depanment- of Mines and Geology,

¶35

¶36

::2t:

¶37

Govemment of Telangana. It is stared that such license has been

¶38

extended from time to time and the present license is for the period f rom 3 7.72.2008 r.o 30.72.2023.

¶39

By the order dated 08.06.2016 issued by respondent No.4

¶40

rejecting the request of the petitioner for consent to operate under Section 25 of the \flater (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (biefly'the^\Water Prevention Act' hereinafter) and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and eontrol of Pollution) Act, 1981 (briefly 'the Air Prevention Act' hereinafter), petitioner was advised to choose an altemarive site in compliance to guidelines issued by the Telangana State Pollution C-ontrol Board.

¶41

Following the same, closure orderwas issued byrespondent No.3 on L8.04.2022. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate aurhorirF constitured under the^-Water Prevention Act as well as under the Air prevention Act being appeal No.17 of 2016. Bythe orrder dated L6.11.202I, appeil filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition came ro be filed bythe petitioner.

¶42

::3::

¶43

¶44

Notice in this case was issued on 29.a4.2022. In the hearing held on 22.07.2022, the following order came to be passed:

¶45

Petitioner's stone crusher unit which has a valid lease upto 30.12.2023 was closed dovn on the ground that it is situated at a distance of 600 meters from the residential area. Appeal filed bythe petitioner before t-he Appellate Authority under the^lWater @revention and C-ontrol of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 being Appeal No 17 of )0rc was rejected on L6.1.1.2021.

¶46

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that when the stone crusher unit was set up, the residential area was quite far off. But due to graduai increase of population, the residential area has now reached near about 600 meten of the stone crusher unit. FIe has made a statemenr that if he is allowed to operate the unit till expi4y of the lease peiod i.e., tt1l30.12.2023, he would himself not seek any further renewal and close down the unit.

¶47

kamed counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to obtain instructions,

List on 03.08.2022.

..\

Thereafter, when the rnatter was taken up on 03.08.2022, learned counsel representing Telangana State Pollution control Board submitted on instructions that proposal of the petitioner could not be accepred.

¶52

In the hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us fresh guidelines issued by the Telangana State Pollution Crntrol Board for establishment of various industries including stone crusher units. Insofar stone cnrshing units are concerned, it is mentioned that distance between boundary of the site and human habitation, educational institutions, hospitals and religious places shall not be.less than 800 meten. However, i{ the distance is less than 500 meters, consent can be given subject to the following additional pollution measures:

¶53

Stone crushen up to 200 TPH capacity, shall have total enclosed shed with dust extraction sptem followed by bag filten for the enrire plant and machinery.

¶54

Stone crushers with more than 200 TPH capaciry individual closed sheds with dust exrraction s;ntems followed by bag filten shall be provided for primary cnrsher (aw cmsher), secondary crusher (cone

¶55

¶56

I I

¶57

crusher), teniary cmsher^{(impactors)and vibrating} screens.

¶58

Leamed counsel for respondents No.2, 3 and^{4 fairlysubmits} that at the time t4ren impugned decisions were hken,^{the above} guidelines were not in place; now that Present^{guidelines have been} issued, petitioner may make a fresh application^{beforeresPondent} No.4 for passing appropriate order.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioner^{submitsthat petitioner's} license is upto 30.12.2023 and therefore^{an early decisionmaybe} taken by respondent No.4 on remand.

¶60

I I

¶61

1,t. After hearing leamed coursel^{for the parties and on due} consideration, we are of the^{view that both respondents No.3 and 4} are required to have a relook^{into the matter havingregardto the} present guidelines of the Telangana State^{Pollution C.ontrol Board} regarding stone crusher units^as extracted^above.

¶62

In the circurnstances, let the^{petitionerfile a fresh} representation before respondents No.3^{and + within two weeks} from today rrhereafter respondents No.3 and^{4 shall tale a fresh}

¶63

¶64

¶65

decision in the matter having regard to the exrant guidelines of the Telangana State Poliution Crntrol Board and thereafter take appropriate decision in accordance with law after giving due opponunityof hearing to the petitioner.

¶66

Let the above exercise be carried our within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of representarion by the Petltloner.

¶67

14.^'ltis disposes of the writ peririon. No costs.

¶68

As a sequel, miscellaneous petirions, pending if any, stand

¶69

closed.

¶70

¶71

SD/-N.RAMESH \ assrsT2T REGTSTRAR

¶72

¶73

//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶74

To,

¶75

'1 . The Principal Secretary.state of Telangana, EFS and T Department' secretariai,state of Teiangana^Hyderabad,

¶76

The Member^{Secretary.Telangana State Pollution Control Board,lnduitrial} Estate, Sanathnagar, HYderabad,

¶77

The Joint chief^{Environmental Engineer, Telanganastate Pollutioncontrol} Board, Zonal Office,^{RCPuram, Sangareddy.}

¶78

' The Hiving Envionrmental iii iegionat^{Engineer, Telangana State Pollution Control} Ofice at D.No.6--2-166/A, Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad'^Board,

¶79

One CC to SRl.^{KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Advocate} IOPUCI

¶80

6.TwoCCstoGPFORMINESANDGEOLOGY(TG),HighCourtfortheState of Telangana. [OUT]

¶81

One CC to^{SRl. PRANAV MUNIGALA,(Addl' SC FOR TSPCB) Advocate} loPUcl

¶82

Two CD CoPies

¶83

One spare coPY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211212022

ORDER

WP.No.23003 of 2022

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITON WITHOUT COSTS.

¶90

ffi. i',-r
I ? rlE[ 2fl?2 I
-/1/
1) I

M/s. Meher Stone Crusher v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Meher Stone Crusher v. The State of Telangana

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 Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Tsrtc) Vs Sri Malothu Nehru

Syed Durvesh Moinuddin Shah Vs The Superintendent of Customs

Uco Bank And 2 Others Vs Venkata Ramana Rao Maganti

P.Babu Rao, Vs Airports Authority of India, and Ano.

M/s.Lns Infrastructures Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. Sonath Wood Industries and 5 Others Vs Tax Recovery OFFICER-11, RANGE-11