Mahalaxmi Grit Udyog vs State of Haryana

R.S. Mongia, J. (Oral)

Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition may be noticed.

A notification was issued by the Haryana Government (Environment Department) on June 9, 1992. The relevant portion of the same reads as under :

"i) that stone crusher unit shall install pollution control measures which will include construction shed and installation of sprinklers. These measures should be operating to the satisfaction of the Pollution Control Board by the 15th August, 1992, failing which the closure of the unit will be ordered.

ii) that no stone crusher unit shall be allowed to operate within the limit of one and a half kilometre of National Highway, one kilometre from the State Highway, one and a half kilometre from town abadi and approved urban colony, I kilometre from village abadi and one a half kilometre from any existing tourist complex.

Such stone crusher units which are in the prohibited limits as detailed above will shift to zones as identified by the Government within six months from the date of issue of the notification.

Vide notification dated August 4, 1992, the Government of Haryana had identified various zones in the State of Haryana where stone crushers could be installed. Two zones were identified in Naurangpur, District Gurgaon, in which land was also identified where the stone crushers could be located.

The petitioner who were in the business of running stone crusher, had to stop their business because their earlier stone crushers were located within the prohibited area. Thy are stated to have purchased land in the identified zone in Naurangapur (Gurgaon) and applied to the Board for no objection certificate on September 16, 1996. In the two zones which were identified at Naurangpur (Gurgaon) 25 stone crushers could be installed in each of the two zones. The petitioners'' applications were registered at Sr. Nos. 54 and 55 and it is not disputed that the applications of the stone crushers were to be dealt with on the first come first served basis. It is the specific averment of the petitioner in para 4 of the writ petition, that the applications of 19 applicants who had applied for no objection certificate, were rejected and the N.O.C. which had been obtained by them earlier stood cancelled. In other words, the petitioners'' number of the basis of cancellation would have been within the first fifty applicants.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to annexure P5 dated June 1, 1997, which is a communication from the Environmental Engineer to the Member Secretary of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, the subject of which reads as under :

"Sub : NOC case 1) M/s Maha Laxmi Grit Udyog VPO Naurangpur, Distt. Gurgaon;

2) M/s Vikas Grit Udyog VPO Naurangpur, Distt. Gurgaon."

The relevant portion of the communication may be reproduced :

"The Priority No. of these NOC''s may be considered as 54 and 55 as the NOC cases upto Sr. No. 53 have already been processed by the Board as per Head Office record.

It is recommended that the NOC to the above 2 Nos. units may please be given against the cancellation of NOC, which is sent to Head Office vide this office letter No. 661 dated 30.12.96 after observing all legal aspects."

However, on May 12, 1997, the petitioners were conveyed that their applications for NOC stood rejected, the reason being that they were beyond the first fifty applicants. The communication, which is from the Board, is to the following effect :

"Kindly refer to your application for NOC received in this office though Regional Officer, Gurgaon vide his letter No. 1114 dated 18.9.1997 on the subject noted above.

In this connection, I have been directed to inform you that your No. Objection Certificate is hereby rejected due to the following reasons :

As per the notification of Environment Department of dated 4.8.1992 only 25 stone crushers can be set up in a single zone. This is a double zone and 50 Nos. NOC already received/issued by this office."

The impugned orders qua the petitioners have been appended as annexures P6 and P7.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once 19 NOCs had been cancelled, which fact is not denied by the respondents, there was no reason not to grant NOC to the petitioners as they then were amongst the first fifty applicants. Learned counsel for the petitioners also drew out attention to paragraph 2 of the short reply filed on behalf of the Board, which reads as under :

"It is not disputed that subsequently in the months of NovemberDecember, 1996, show cause notices were issued to a number of other stone crushing units for cancellation of no objection certificates on the ground that they had been unable to establish their industry. After their replies had been received, and found to be without merit, the "no objection certificates" issued in their favour were cancelled. This happened sometime in the year 1997. As such, more stone crushing units could be accommodated within the same zone."

Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly stated that now the number of stone crushers which can be accommodated in the aforesaid two zones has been increased from 50 to 80 (40 in each zone). On the basis of this statement, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there should not be any reason with the Board not to accommodate the petitioners as the number of stone crushers which can be accommodated in a particular zone has been increased by the Board itself.

If the basis for the grant of NOC was first come serve, then on that basis, after the cancellation of certain NOCs of other applicants, the petitioners should have been accommodated being amongst first fifty applicants. However, possibility cannot be ruled out that since 1996 till date, some other applicants might have been given the NOC to establish their stone crushers in the aforesaid two zones (though the learned counsel for the respondents is not definite about it as he has no instructions one way or the other). Assuming that to be so, we do not in this writ petition wish to cancel the NOCs that might have been granted to such applicants though they may be later applicants than the petitioners. In case 40 applicants so far have not been given NOC in the zone where the petitioners had applied for the NOC, the petitioners may now be given NOC. However, they will have to comply with all the conditions which the other applicants who had earlier applied in the year 1996 are supposed to comply with for running a stone crushers. This may be done within a period of one month. We take it clear that if there is any stay order by any competent court from running the stone crushers in the zone in which the petitioners had applied for No Objection Certificate, then the petitioners would abide by that stay order unless they get it vacated in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

A copy of this order, attested by the Private Secretary of this Court, be given to Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for onward transmission to the concerned quarters.