Smt. Usha Jain vs Addl. District Magistrate and Others

Ravi S. Dhavan, J.—The Petitioner runs an industry of a stone crusher in the District of Haridwar. The name of the industry is M/s. Veer Shree Traders, Stone Crusher, Roorkee Road, Jwalapur, District Haridwar. The Petitioner Smt. Usha Jain, is the proprietor of the industry. The Respondents arrayed are the Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar, Respondent No. 1, the Station House Officer, Jwalapur, District Haridwar, Respondent No. 2 and the Regional Officer, Pollution Control Board, Dehradun, Respondent No. 3.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by a communication of the Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar, to the Circle Officer, Police Station Jwalapur, dated 6th July, 1994, by which on a complaint by some ladies near the village asserting that the stone crusher of the Petitioner was causing nuisance in the discharge of fine dust, directions were given that the operation of the stone crusher be stopped.

The Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash this order. It is submitted in the petition that no nuisance is being created and that the Petitioner has a valid license to run the stone crusher. The license has been granted by the Zila Parishad. The Petitioner submits that this order of the Additional District Magistrate has been passed without complying with the provisions of Sections 133 and 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is also submitted that the Additional District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass this order.

The reply to the writ petition by the Respondents, in effect, of the U.P. Pollution Control Board, is thoroughly inadequate and shabby. The Court is referring to this aspect of the matter as a little more detail needs to be given. In matters which concern the environment not the officer-in-charge of environmental planning but a Legal Assistant has affirmed the affidavit. The submissions in the counter-affidavit, in the first part has nothing to do with this case. In the rest of it, the submissions are even devoid of reference to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Constitution of India, referring to the environment and ecology, particularly, Articles 48A and 51A(g). The Constitution virtually make the protection of the environment a constitutional obligation of every citizen, the State not excluded.

The Petitioner refers to a report of 27th August, 1994, appended as Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. This is the report of Regional Officer, Regional Office, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Dehradun. The contention of the Petitioner is that when the inspection was done on 21st August, 1994, the industry run by the Petitioner, that is the stone crusher, did not have a high level of suspended solid material in the air. The report is virtually worthless, as it talks of the state of affairs during the monsoon season and also accepts that suspended solid material in the air during the rains will be less. The report does not refer to the record of any inspection carried out when the monsoon season had not set in or was over. This in itself shows the half hearted effort of the environmental authorities to tackle these matters. It shows how the environmental authorities, at times write reports to play safe both with the industry and the Government administration. A report to suit every occasion.

The Petitioner bought the stone crusher in 1980, from someone else. At that time, the Environment Protection Act, 1986 had not arrived. Even the inadequate record in the writ petition reveals that there is no issue that the stone crusher contributes to suspension dust, of the air in the vicinity of this industry. The residents have complained about the nuisance created by the Petitioner''s plant. Near the stone crusher is an Abadi. The village has about 1200 persons. The people of the village have complained. In so far as the Additional District Magistrate is concerned, he was seized of the situation only on the aspect that the stone crusher of the Petitioner is causing nuisance. This is one aspect of the matter. The aspect which needs to be monitored very carefully is whether the stone crusher is upsetting the balance of the ecology of the area. If the indication is positive, only two options are available to the Petitioner either to fall in line and ensure that environmental standards for this industry are adhered to so that no pollution is caused to the area in and around the industry or if this is not possible, then, the District Magistrate, Haridwar will ensure that this industry is relocated and even at the place of relocation the Petitioner will have to adhere to norms so that neither the environment of the area nor the ecology suffers from pollution.

In the circumstances, the Court is not inclined to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Additional District Magistrate, dated 6th July, 1994.

The petition is dismissed with costs.