Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36020 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S New Ma Sharda Stone Mill Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devbrat Mukherjee Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Devbrat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3.
We had posted the matter today to enable the learned counsel to serve a copy of the petition on the learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board. Dr H.N.Tripathi, Advocate is present on behalf of the newly added respondent no. 4.
This writ petition questions the correctness of the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 4.8.2018 as communicated through the letter dated 10.08.2018, whereby the license granted to the petitioner for storage under the U.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002 has been suspended.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that firstly there is no power to suspend and secondly the suspension proceeds on an erroneous application of law on the facts as existing, inasmuch as, if the stone crusher plant of the petitioner has been seized and temporarily shut down on account of violation of any pollution norms, then the same cannot be a ground for suspension or cancellation of storage license, which is meant for storing minerals after mining for which also there is a valid lease in favour of the licensee.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner also has a mining lease for minerals and it is for the said purpose that the storage license was granted to the petitioner. Thus, linking the storage license with the pollution control matter of the stone crushing unit is absolutely misplaced and any suspension based thereon is not legally sustainable.
Learned counsel submits that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as well.
We had called upon the learned counsel for the respondents and they have advanced their submission contending that if the stone crusher plant is shut down for the time being due to deficeincy of pollution norms then there is no justification for the petitioner to claim continuance of his storage license which is for the same place where the stone crusher plant is situated. It is also submitted that in the given circumstances if the crusher plant has been shut down then storage license is also without any purpose and, consequently, there is absolutely no reason for any interference by this Court with the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate.
We have examined the contentions and the learned counsel for the parties agree for the final disposal of the writ petition at this stage itself without waiting for any further affidavits.
What we find from the record is that, it is correct that an order by the Pollution Control Board has been passed against the petitioner on 27th June, 2018 in respect of alleged violation of the pollution norms by the stone crusher plant. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had a Pollution Control Board permission which is valid dated 31.12.2018 and yet on an alleged inspection made by the Pollution Control Authorities, the orders have been passed that was challenged in writ petition no. 25268 of 2018, which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal and, accordingly, the petitioner has filed the appeal which is stated to have been entertained by the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority dated 12th September, 2018 has been placed on record and the same recites that the petitioner is bound to comply the pollution norms, and therefore, no interference is called for by the said order and since the petitioner has complied with the entire norms, it shall be open to him to approach before the Pollution Control Board for revisiting the order dated 27th June, 2018 .
Learned counsel submits that this entire exercise with regard to the violation of pollution norms is absolutely in no way linked with the storage license, but the District Magistrate for some undisclosed reasons, has proceed to virtually twist the arm of the petitioner and has passed an order in order to prejudice the business of the petitioner for mining which is under a valid lease.
We having considered the aforesaid submissions find that the grant of lease for mining is a separate right of the lease holder. For the purpose of storing minerals, a license was granted under the 2002 Rules, that undisputedly is available with the petitioner. The said license therefore has a connection with the mining of minerals and not with the running of the crushing plant. The storage of minerals that are mined are controlled by terms and conditions of the storage license. The same cannot be suspended or otherwise cancelled on the basis of deficiency of pollution norms of the stone crusher plant. The storage license does not appear to have been violated nor, is there such recital in the orders passed by the District Magistrate.
In such circumstances, we find no justification for the District Magistrate to have suspended the storage license of the petitioner granted to him under 2002 Rules .
In view of aforesaid facts and the discussion hereinabove, the order dated 4.08.2018 and 10.08.2018 cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 4.8.2018 and communication dated 10.08.2018 are hereby quashed. It shall be open for the authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law provided there is any violation of terms and condition of the licence under the respective rules.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Sanjeev