Road Metal Industries vs A.P. Pollution Control Board

S.B. Sinha, C.J.—This writ petition is filed against the order of the respondent dated 24.9.1997 directing closure of the petitioner-industry for non-compliance of the directives of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board.

The factual matrix of the case lies in a very narrow compass.

Petitioner runs a granite stone-crushing unit in S. No. 91, Gachi Bowli village, Rangareddy District. It entered into an agreement with the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 1.1.1976 for quarrying the granite stones in an extent of Ac.58.12 Gts. in the said land. It is not in dispute that the provisions of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, govern such lease. On or about 4.9.1992, the petitioner received a notice from the respondent-Pollution Control Board (for short PCB) wherein it was stated that during the inspection of the industry by the officials of the Board, it was found that thick dense dust is emanating from the industry polluting the environment. The petitioner unit was, therefore, directed to take certain steps to control the emissions immediately to the following standards:

Suspended particulate matter - 115 mg/Nm3

If it is observed that still thick dust is emanating from the process, action would be taken u/s 31A of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987.

Prohibiting you from carrying out industrial activity.

Disconnect power supply.

Water supply.

You are hereby asked to give a reply to the undersigned within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which necessary action will be taken without any further notice to you.

The petitioner submitted a reply thereto on 21.9.1992 asking the Board to enlighten it in general/common words about the decision so that necessary steps for compliance may be taken. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued by the Board on 8.7.1997 pointing out the non-compliance of the directives of the Board to which the petitioner by letter dated 22.7.97 replied that by the time the industry was established in 1976 there were no residential colonies in the vicinity. A personal hearing was also given to the petitioner on 2.9.1997, as the petitioner-industry had not installed any dust control equipment. Thereafter, as the petitioner had not complied with the directives, the impugned closure order was issued on 24.9.1997 directing closure of the industry. An appeal was taken by the petitioner before the appellate authority u/s 31 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and by order dated 9.3.1998 the appellate authority ordered:

Though various grounds were urged in the Memorandum of Appeal, at the time of arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant confined his arguments to the allegation that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to put forth its case before the Is'' respondent and that it has resulted in great prejudice and that the order is arbitrary and illegal. He. therefore, requested the Appellate Authority to set aside the order of the closure and remand the case to the 1st respondent, so that it could give the appellant an opportunity of being heard and dispose of the matter. The appellant further requested that the raw material which was dug out in the mining operations and the finished product at the crushing unit shall be allowed to be disposed of by the appellant. The Standing Counsel for the respondents had no objection for remanding the matter, as it would clearly appear that the impugned order was made without hearing the appellant. He also conceded to request of the appellant to permit him to sell away the raw material and finished product if any. Hence under the circumstances the order dated 24.9.97 directing closure of the unit is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh disposal for giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard. But, however, this shall not entitle the appellant to run the unit. The appellant is at liberty to dispose the raw material and finished product if any on the site in survey No. 91.

Strangely enough, the petitioner, instead of complying with the said order, by letter dated 27.1.1999 asked the Board to issue a letter of permission to visit M/s. Venkateshwara Stone Crushing Unit situated at Jaggaiahpet. Krishna District to study the measures taken by the management of M/s. Venkateswara Stone Crushing unit to control the pollution in accordance with the environment norms laid down by Ministry of Environment. The petitioner again by another letter-dated 4.2.1999 requested the Member Secretary to give a letter of consent to visit the aforesaid industry.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in order to know the technical knowledge as to how to check the pollution, it is necessary for the officers of the petitioner''s unit to visit the other similar industrial units and therefore, the PCB should extend all the cooperation by giving a letter of permission to visit the other industries so that the officers of the petitioner''s unit can visit the other factories and take video photograph of the entire system of pollution control operation adopted by such units.

A Counter-affidavit has been filed wherein it was stated that: after the matter was remanded by the appellate authority to the Board for fresh disposal, the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 3.4.1998 and the industry was directed to meet MoEF standards and in fact the industry had agreed to install pollution control equipment to control dust pollution. In the counter it was further stated:

...the industry has approached the Hon''ble High Court and filed W.P. No. 33900 of 1998 wherein the Board is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner industry fixing a date and giving time of not less than 15 days thereafter to hear the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In pursuance of the Hon''ble High Court order the industry was once again given one more opportunity of being heard i.e. the industry was called for personal hearing on 25.1.1999 in the Chambers of Member Secretary. A.P. Pollution Control Board. The representative of the industry Mr. Syed Iqbal Ali and others attended the meeting. Again the industry was informed to implement MoEF guidelines and also suggested to inspect similar type of industry located at Jaggayyapet. Krishna District. The representatives of the industry informed that he has taken some measure and requested for grant of 15 to 20 days to implement MoEF guidelines.

It was also stated that the hot mixing plant of the industry was issued show cause notice on 27.2.1999 to shift the unit from the existing premises as no control equipment was provided to the chimney of the hot mixing plant to contain the Hue gas emissions from the hot mixing plant. Again the industry was directed to furnish compliance report on implementation of MoEF guidelines for stone crushers and installation of pollution control equipment for meeting the standards stipulated by the Board vide letter dated 4.7.1999.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we fail to understand as to how the petitioner can maintain the writ petition for a direction upon the PCB to allow it to visit the other industry and take video photograph of the pollution equipment of the said industry. The petitioner can maintain a writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus only in the event it establishes existence of a legal right in itself and corresponding legal duty in the respondents. It has utterly failed to prove the existence of a legal right and a corresponding legal duty in the respondents.

The onus to prove that by reason of its industrial activities no pollution is being caused was upon the petitioner. The order of the Board u/s 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or the order of the appellate authority is not in question.

The statutory authorities can issue a direction upon the industrial unit asking it to take such preventive or remedial measures to stop pollution being caused from its industrial activity. It cannot however advice the industrial unit to visit the premises of other factories for the purpose of finding out as to what steps had been taken by other industrial units to contain the pollution. It has no statutory liability to advise the petitioner as to how it should comply with the directions and/or compel others to allow the officers of the petitioner''s unit to visit their factory premises and permit them to take video photograph of the entire pollution equipment. Such a course in our view, is beyond the jurisdiction of the PCB while exercising its jurisdiction under the statutory provisions.

We fail to understand why the petitioner cannot hire the services of professionals in the matter. In the event the petitioner intends to run its industrial establishment, it will have no other option but to install such type of preventive equipment, which would not cause any pollution and/or fulfil the norms or standards fixed by the State Pollution Control Board or Central Pollution Control Board.

As the respondent-Board has no statutory duty either in terms of the provisions of the statute or otherwise to comply with the request made by the petitioner, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.