D.N. Patel, J.@mdashHaving heard counsel for both the sides, Rule.
2. So far as question of interim relief is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially looking to paragraph Nos. 9 and
10 of the counter affidavit, filed by the Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 45 of 2011, as quoted herein below, it appears that there is, prima facie, a
case in favour of the Petitioner.
9. It is submitted that the Ministry of Environment & Forests has issued a moratorium on 13.1.2010 restricting environmental clearances for new
polluting industries/projects in 43 critically polluted industrial clusters which include only one cluster i.e. Dhanbad in the State of Jharkhand and not
the Barajamada industrial cluster where the iron ore crusher of the Petitioner is located.
10. It is submitted that the notification dated 27.7.2010 issued by Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi is not in
consonance with O.M. dated 13.1.2010 issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forest.
(Emphasis supplied)
3. The State of Jharkhand has issued a direction dated 27th July, 2010, which has been referred in the aforesaid paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the
counter affidavit, mainly relying upon the office memorandum, issued by the Central Government dated 13th January, 2010. Thus, it appears that
the direction issued by the State Government dated 27th July, 2010 is based upon some misinterpretation or misreading of the office
memorandum, issued by the Central Government dated 13th January, 2010. Therefore, the subsequent order, issued by the Jharkhand State
Pollution Control Board at Annexure-4 to the memo of this petition is also sailing in the same boat, because the impugned order passed in August,
2010, based upon the direction, issued by the State of Jharkhand dated 27th July, 2010. Thus, there is a prima facie case in favour of the present
Petitioner. Moreover, looking to the requirement of Section 21(4), if there is any breach of any of the conditions upon which, the consent was
given by the Pollution Control Board, then the State Pollution Control Board can refuse further consent after expiry of the earlier consent. In the
facts of the present case, in advance, the State has declared its intention not to grant consent or not to renew the consent, without pointing out, any
breach of any of the conditions. Moreover, as per the 2nd Proviso to Sub-Section 4 of Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981, before refusing further consent under the 1st Proviso of Sub-Section 4 of Section 21, a reasonable opportunity of being heard ought to
have been given to the Petitioner. Prima facie, looking to the facts of the case, it appears that the State Government is not alleging any breach of
the condition of the consent, previously given by the Respondent-Board, nor any opportunity of being heard has been given by the Respondent-
Board to the Petitioner before issuing the direction, as stated in the impugned order in August, 2010. Balance of convenience is also in favour of
the Petitioner as the Petitioner, which is a working unit, has never received any notice for breach of any of the conditions, upon which the consent
was previously given by the Respondent-Board and the Petitioner has invested sizable amount towards the establishment of the crushing unit. In
view of these facts, an irreparable loss will also be caused to the Petitioner, if the stay, as prayed for, is not granted.
4. I therefore stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order, passed by the Respondents-Jharkhand State Pollution
Control Board, dated 28th August, 2010, which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of this writ petition, till the next date of hearing.
5. Counsel for the Respondent-Union of India, Respondent-State and other Respondents are seeking time to file their respective counter affidavits.
6. Time, as prayed for, is granted.
7. Rule is made returnable on 25th July, 2011.
8. I hereby, direct the Petitioner to continue with the iron ore crushing activities till the next date of hearing.
9. It is expected from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board that on or before the next date of hearing, it will file the counter affidavit and if
the Board is relying upon any document, copy of the same will also be filed on or before the next date of hearing, so that the same may be
considered by this Court, on the next date of hearing.
10. This matter will be heard along with W.P.(C) No. 3277 of 2011.
