Gujarat Pollution Control Board vs Parmar Devusinh Shersinh and Others

S.K. Keshote, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Challenge is made in the Special Civil Application filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution to the order dated 24th May, 1998 of the Appellate Authority constituted u/s 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of

Pollution) Act, 1974, in Appeal No. 17 of 1986. The appeal is filed by the respondent No. 1 and under the impugned order, same was held to be

maintainable. The objection raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the appeal was came to be disallowed under this impugned

order.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has no locus standi to file the appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is a

grievance of the respondent No. 1 before the Appellate Authority that the consent order passed by the petitioner in respect of the respondent No.

2-Industry will adversely affect the petitioner and other persons of the area and he has right of appeal. It is true that respondent No. 1 was not a

party to the consent order, but in case that order adversely affects the petitioner, certainly, the appeal is maintainable. He was not a party to the

order impugned before the Appellate Authority and copy of the same was not required to be sent to him. But, merely because he was not a party

or that the copy of the order was not sent to respondent No. 1, is hardly any ground to disallow him from filing of the appeal. This is a matter of

pollution control and all the affected persons can file an appeal u/s 28 of the Act, which is very specific and clear. Any person aggrieved by an

order made by the Board u/s 25, Section 26 or Section 27, has a right of appeal. It is not the case of the petitioner that the order which has been

challenged by respondent No. 1 before the Appellate Authority does not fall under any of the provisions of Sections 25, 26 or 27 of the Act. The

water and air pollution are really a serious problems in the country and it is not unknown that the Courts are taking these matters very seriously.

Public interest litigations are being filed in the Court in many of the matters where there is endanger of water or air pollution by installation of

industry. If this is the position then, I fail to see in case the respondent No. 1 has gone to the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal, how he could

have been deprived of his right of pollution free air and water.

A person who was not a party to the order has a right of appeal to the Appellate Authority though with the leave of the Appellate Authority,

where the impugned order adversely affects him. This position of law is well settled. The petitioner, in case, is aggrieved of the order of the Board,

an appeal is permissible with the leave of the Appellate Authority. Here the Appellate Authority has entertained the appeal and objection raised by

the petitioner regarding its maintainability thereof has been turned down. In view of this legal position, the petitioner has no case whatsoever.

It is an interlocutory order and I fail to see any justification more so in the action of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Gandhinagar, to file this

petition in this Court. The Board is equally concerned to see that the citizens of the country get pollution free water and air. In such matters, if this

petition is filed by the board, it necessarily gives an inference that possibly to favour the industry, this petition has been filed. Such an objection

regarding maintainability of the appeal before the Appellate Authority at the instance of the petitioner is difficult to appreciate. The industry has not

challenged this order. This petition otherwise is wholly misconceived and appears to have been an attempt on the part of some Officer of the

Board to plead the case of the respondent-Industry. The challenge to interlocutory order otherwise is also difficult to appreciate. The party to the

litigation cannot be permitted, to stall the final adjudication of the matter by filing the Special Civil Application in this Court against an interlocutory

order. This course cannot be permitted for the obvious reason that if ultimately the petitioner fails in the appeal, it has all right to challenge this order

in the Special Civil Application to be filed against the final order of the Appellate Authority. In this case, the petitioner has all the right to challenge

this interlocutory order in the Special Civil Application to be filed against the final decision given in the appeal by the Appellate Authority. From the

facts of this case, I find that the advice to file this Special Civil Application in the Court given to the Board does not seem to be proper and more

so where the control of air and water pollution is equally concern of the Board. Respondent No. 2-Industry concerned has not challenged this

order though it is a party to the appeal. The petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved of the order of the Appellate Authority which is challenged in

this proceeding.

As a result of this aforesaid discussion, this Special Civil Application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any,

granted stands vacated. No order as to costs. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal within three months from the date of

receipt of the writ of this order.

Rule discharged.