High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 07 JH CK 0069

Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 10 July 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prakash Tatia, J · Jaya Roy, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1325 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 419 words
1.

Leaned counsel Mr. Sinha (Amicus Curiae) has submitted the suggestions and gave remedial measures which may be taken up to prevent the pollution in the Swarnarekha river. Learned Counsel Mr. A.K. Pathak has submitted supplementary affidavit dated 11.4.2012, submitted in the Court on 23.4.2012, and suggested for constituting an Expert Committee by the High Court.

2.

Learned counsel for the Intervenor has also submitted that apart from the river Swarnarekha, in other rivers'' belt, illegal constructions are going on and the counsel for the Intervenor has submitted the photographs of one industrial unit constructing in the river belt area and the State Government is not taking any action.

3.

Learned counsel for the Tata Steel has submitted that the Tata Steel has taken steps and will submit a road-map as to how they will proceed in the matter to provide the habitable environment for the public.

4.

Learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board Mr. A.K. Pandey has submitted that the Pollution Control Board is also taking steps in the line of the suggestions given with respect to the item No. 10 of the suggestions given by the learned counsel Shri Sinha.

5.

Since it is a larger issue with respect to the pollution in the river Swarnarekha as well as the slag disposal in the rivers and the Swarnarekha issue may be a model issue for taking steps concerning all the rivers in the State of Jharkhand, and therefore, a larger issue is involved which requires a thorough consideration by the State Government. The Government, therefore, may consider the suggestions given by the learned counsel Shri Sinha as well as the Intervenor, and may convene a meeting with the officers of the Pollution Control Board and the persons from the Tata Steel company and learned counsel for the Intervenor and Shri Sinha (Amicus Curiae) may also be invited in that meeting to find out the steps which the State Government can taken in this regard. A report may be submitted to this Court within a period of four weeks. However, it is made clear that even during this period, it is the duty of the State Government to see that no river belt should be encroached by anybody and what are the steps to be taken, they can take to prevent the pollution as well as the encroachment from the river in the river belt area. Put up this case after four weeks. Copy of the order may be given to the learned counsels for the parties.