A petition1 was filed in the public interest by the petitioner complaining of the setting up of a brick kiln without the consent of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board2, by the private respondents. The petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 18 December 2013 in terms of the following order:
"According to the petitioner, the fourth and fifth respondents have illegally constructed a brick kiln, which is within the prohibited area as has been prescribed by the Circular dated 27 June 2012. According to the petitioner, no consent from the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board has been obtained.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent states that the Board will look into the grievance of the petitioner expeditiously and ensure that no violation of law takes place.
In view of the assurance, no further directions are required to be issued. The petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
A contempt application3 was taken out with the grievance that despite the order of the Division Bench, the authorities had failed to ensure compliance. On 28 March 2014 the contempt application was disposed of with a direction that if the competent authority did not comply with the order within eight weeks without any reasonable cause, the Court would have no option except to punish him under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and other allied powers, and if an order was passed, a copy thereof would be furnished to the petitioner.
Now, the grievance is that thereafter a three-Member Committee was constituted which found that the brick kiln was operated illegally. Ultimately, on 26 May 2014 the brick kiln was closed by the authorities. The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and a reply was furnished by the fourth respondent that the brick kiln had been closed and an affidavit was filed by the offending owner that no operation would be carried out at the site in question. The petitioner was informed by the Regional Officer on 27 May 2014 that the brick kiln had been closed. In his representation which has been submitted by the petitioner to the Chief Environmental Officer (annexure-7 to the writ petition) on 22 October 2014, it has been alleged that the brick kiln has been restarted.
This Court is inclined to take a serious view of the manner in which these grievances are required to be brought before the Court for the simple reason that the Regional Officers of the Board do not perform their statutory obligations. This Court is repeatedly moved with grievances that though action has been taken against an offending brick kiln, after a lapse of time it is found that the brick kiln has been restarted. In fact, such a grievance was raised before the Court today in an earlier writ petition in Omkar Nath Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others4. In the circumstances, this Court has issued directions to the Chief Environmental Officer of the Board to take remedial steps. We are now constrained to observe that such a brazen violation of law would not be possible if the officers, who are entrusted with duties to ensure compliance, diligently perform their duties. Worse still, such brazen violation can take place only due to the complicity and connivance of the ground level staff of the Board.
We, therefore, direct the Chief Environmental Officer of the Board to devise a mechanism for ensuring strict observance of law. A monitoring mechanism must be put into place to ensure that complaints in regard to illegal operation of brick kilns are duly registered. Each complaint should be assigned a registration number. The action taken on the complaint must be reported to the Chief Environmental Officer of the Board. The Chief Environmental Officer shall monitor the action which is being taken. Thereafter, it is the bounden obligation and duty of the Board to ensure that an operation which has been stopped because it was in violation of law and because no consent of the Board had been taken, is not restarted after a lapse of time. We direct that the Chief Environmental Officer shall put into place a proper monitoring mechanism which will oversee enforcement of law and would ensure that illegalities which are stopped, are not resumed once again. All citizens are not necessarily in a position to move the Court against offending brick kiln owners either due to ignorance of law or, as is often likely, due to the clout and muscle which is wielded at the village level by the illegal operators. The right to a clean and healthy environment is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The repeated filing of petitions before this Court in the public interest is only indicative of the fact that the Board is required to set its house in order and to be truly responsible and accountable to the legitimate concerns of citizens, for whose protection legislation, such as, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 has been enacted. Should the Court be apprised in future of such brazen violations of law, we place the Chief Environmental Officer on notice that the Court would be, in an appropriate case, constrained to take a serious note of the lapse on the part of the officials concerned. The monitoring mechanism, which the Chief Environmental Officer shall put into place, must also provide for a system of accountability, so that any Regional Officer or local level staff found to be in breach of the performance of duties, is dealt with administratively firmly by the imposition of appropriate penalties and by invocation of the disciplinary jurisdiction. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from today.
Insofar as the particular allegation in the present case against the private parties is concerned, we direct the Chief Environmental Officer to have a due and proper scrutiny conducted with due notice to the affected parties and thereafter to take necessary action as may be warranted in law.
A copy of the compliance shall be forwarded by the Chief Environmental Officer to the Registrar General of this Court who shall place a copy thereof on the record.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :-5.12.2014 SKT/-
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ.) (P.K.S. Baghel, J.) Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice Hon'ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.
Disposed of.
For order, see our order of the date passed on the separate sheets (five pages).
Order Date :- 5.12.2014 SKT/-
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ.) (P.K.S. Baghel, J.)