High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4430/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA
Legal Reasoning
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-IV communication made to the respondent No.7 dated 18.06.2011, furnishing the NOC on the basis of the applic ation made by the respondent No.7 on 23.02.2011. For a ready reference the impug ned communication dated 18.06.2011 is quoted below:- (cid:28) To, M/S WOOD AND WOOD CRAFT Mancotta Road, Ward No.16 Dibrugarh. No Objection Certificate. your application No. Nil dated 23.02.2011. After due consideration and verification of land records it is f ound that your Carpentry Shop is situated in a purely commercial side, hence NOC is hereby issued to you for running the Carpentry Shop subject to the following terms and conditions:- Sub: Ref: 1. The Carpentry Shop should be run within the permissible noise limit a s fixed by Pollution Control Board for Carpentry Unit. 2. You may install inverter and to remove the DG set. 3. Trade license issued by this office based on manual works as well as maintenance of machine viz (i) Circular Saw (ii) Wood lath and (iii) Planner as per existing guidelines and conditions of Pollution Control Board’s permissible noise limit. 4. The undersigned reserves the right to cancel the Trade License in cas e of any violation of the above conditions. (cid:29) As it is evident from the impugned order dated 18.06.2011, it does not r efer to the order of this Court passed in the earlier round of litigation in WP( C) No.4200/2010. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent No.7 against the closure notice of its Workshop standing in the name and style of M/s Wood a nd Wood, situated at RNC Path (Mancotta Road) in Dibrugarh town. The closure not ice was issued by the Dibrugarh Municipal Board asking the respondent No.7 to sh ift his business to some other place beyond Dibrugarh Municipality area.
Decision
The writ petition was disposed of taking note of the rival claims of the parties involved, directing the Dibrugarh Municipal Board and the Pollution Con trol Board to take a decision as to whether the particular business established by respondent No.7 is in a commercial or residential area and conducing in the p urpose of the business. It was noted in the order that according to the responde nt Municipal Board, carpentry works under taken by the respondent No.7 is beyond the permissible limit of noise pollution. Accordingly, the writ petition was di sposed of with the following direction:- (cid:28)Considering the matter in its entirety, I dispose of this writ petition providing that the respondent Board shall now pass a speaking order taking into account all relevant factors including the opinion of the Pollution Control Boa rd in respect of the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of the trade license for undertaking Carpentry works. As noted above, presently the petitioner is in possession of the trade license for running the ’Wooden Furniture Showroom.’ Thu s, naturally the petitioner cannot be permitted to undertake Carpentry works whi ch will be beyond the permissible limit for which the trade license (Annexure-K) has been issued to him. Till the speaking order is passed consistently with the observations mad e above, the modified order dated 03.01.2011 passed in this proceeding shall con tinue to hold the field. (cid:29) After the aforesaid order dated 14.02.2011, the Chairman, Dibrugarh Muni cipal Board issued the impugned communication dated 18.06.2011 granting NOC to t he respondent No.7. However, as noted above, the said communication does not ind icate anything about the aforesaid order of this Court. According to the petitio ner the NOC could not have been issued by the Dibrugarh Municipal Board without appreciating the ground reality and also making the required consultation with t he Pollution Control Board. In the additional affidavit filed by the Pollution Control Board the not ice dated 17.09.2011 issued to the respondent No.7 has been brought on record. B y the said notice, the respondent No.7 has been directed to stop operation of hi s unit. He has also been directed to shift the unit to a convenient place outsid e the Municipality area with prior permission from the Board. As indicated in th e notice, the respondent No.7 has not obtained the consent to operate from the P ollution Control Board as per the provisions of AIR (Prevention and Control of P ollution) Act, 1981. There is also allegation of violation of the provisions of law in force causing pollution to the environment and accordingly the notice was issued u/s 31 A (a) of the Act. While Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner subm its that in spite of the aforesaid position, the respondent No.7 has been runnin g the unit, Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 su bmits that the petitioner has been running the unit as per the NOC granted by th e Dibrugarh Municipal Board. Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel representing the P ollution Control Board, submits that since the unit is being run by the responde nt No.7 in violation of the provisions of the aforesaid act, the aforesaid notic e was issued to him and he is bound by the conditions stipulated in the said not ice. In terms of the earlier order of this Court, the Dibrugarh Municipal Boa rd was to pass a speaking order in consultation with the Pollution Control Board . Although in the additional affidavit filed by the Dibrugarh Municipal Board, a n order has been brought on record describing the same to be the speaking order in terms of the earlier order of this Court, but on perusal of the said order da ted 10.08.2012, it appears that no consultation with the Pollution Control Board has been referred to including the aforesaid notice issued by the Pollution Con trol Board to the petitioner asking him to close the unit and shift the same bey ond the Municipality area. In view of the above, it is apparent that the Dibrugarh Municipal Board has failed to carry out the aforesaid direction of this Court in its true prospe ctive and has passed the impugned order with a mechanical approach. In the proce ss it has also not consulted the Pollution Control Board. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 18.06.2011 (Annexure-IV) and the matter is remanded back to the Dibrugarh Municipal Board to carry out the directions as c ontained in the order dated 14.02.2011, passed in the earlier writ petition bein g WP(C) No. 4200/2010. The required exercise towards passing a speaking order sh all be carried out in consultation with the Pollution Control Board as expeditio usly as possible preferably by 31.08.2013.