M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the BCCL pointed out that on 01.5.2012 it may have been projected that issues involved in this writ petition and the issues involved in the W.P. (PIL) No. 2663 of 2011 are common or are connected with the issue raised in the W.P. (PIL) No. 2663 of 2011 and the same issue is being heard by the learned Single Judge in the W.P. (C) No. 4944 of 2011.

Learned counsel for the BCCL submitted that in fact in the case of M/s. BCCL, the orders have been passed, which have been challenged and after hearing the parties, interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge. It is also submitted that the W.P. (PIL) No. 2663 of 2011 relates to only those plants which are manufacturing the Bee-hive Hard Coke whereas M/s. BCCL is not manufacturing Bee-hive Hard Coke. It is submitted that the order under challenge in W.P. (C) No. 4944 of 23011 was with respect to the order passed by the authorities.

Learned Advocate General submitted that in fact the W.P. (PIL) No. 2663 of 2011 is a public interest litigation seeking supervision of this Court with respect to controlling of the pollution created by the manufacturer of Hard Coke and it may not be limited to only Bee-hive Hard Coke plants and therefore, in case any order is passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 2663 of 2011, then another order passed in W.P. (C) No. 4944 of 2011 will allow the petitioner of that writ petition to continue with the pollution in spite of the monitoring of the control of pollution by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 2663 of 2011.

We are of the considered opinion that when there is specific order which has been challenged in the writ petition filed by the B.C.C.L. i.e. a unit which is not manufacturing its product like Bee-hive Hard Coke; therefore, it is misconceived to say that if any order is passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 2663 of 2011, there may be a contrary order in W.P. (C) No. 4944 of 2011, because of the reason that in the private petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the State authority and if the order is illegal or absolutely unjustifiable and liable to be quashed, then that may give a right to the parties to continue with the process by which it is manufacturing its product.

We are making it clear that our observations should not come in the way of either of the parties in the writ petition which is pending before the learned Single Judge and the issue which may be raised in the W.P. (PIL) No. 2663 of 2011 before this Court.

In view of the above reasons, W.P. (C) No. 4944 of 2011 is sent back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the matter as expeditiously as possible with cooperation of the learned counsel for the parties in view of the fact that the State has grievance that there is interim order in favour of the writ petitioner of the W.P. (C) No. 4944 of 2011.

The W.P. (C) No. 4944 of 2011 is separated from W.P. (PIL) No. 2663 of 2011 and the record of writ petition is sent back to the learned Single Judge with request to decide the matter expeditiously. The matter may be placed before learned Single Judge on 25.6.2012.