M/S Dashin Asapatic Relief ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16284 Bom

                                1/5                           Judg.30.wp.4669.2019



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 4669 OF 2019


        M/s Dashin Asapatic
        Relief Clinical Lab, Muslim Library
        Chowk, Bhandara, District Bhandara,
        through its Proprietor Ashish s/o
        Murlidhar Bansod.                   ...                       PETITIONER


                         VERSUS


1.      State of Maharashtra
        through its Secretary, Department of
        Environment, Mumbai.

2.      Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
        Sub Regional Office, Tatya Tope Ward,
        Near City Petrol Pump, Miskin Tank,
        Mahal Road, Bhandara - 44190.

3.      Deputy Chief Executive Officer
        Zilla  Parishad,    Bhandara,       District
        Bhandara.

4.      Grampanchayat, Dhargaon
        through its Secretary, Panchayat Samiti
        Bhandara, District Bhandara.

5.      The Collector,
        Bhandara, District Bhandara.                    ...       RESPONDENTS




 ::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2021                 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2021 03:02:09 :::
                                    2/5                         Judg.30.wp.4669.2019



Mr. A. M. Ghare, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. Shiba Thakur h/f Mr. S. S. Sanyal, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. A. Y. Kapgate, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

                                         CORAM   : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
                                                   ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

                                         DATE    : NOVEMBER 24, 2021.


ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]


.                  Heard Mr. Ghare, the learned Counsel for Petitioner, Ms.

Thakur, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and Mr.

Kapgate, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.4.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

3. Here is the case, where the Petitioner, an environment

conscious citizen of India is anxious to set up on his own land Common

Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF), and for this purpose,

the Petitioner has succeeded in obtaining green signal from the

Maharashtra Pollution Control Board when it issued the Terms of

Reference valid for the period of three years. The Petitioner also got

3/5 Judg.30.wp.4669.2019

favourable reports from the State of Maharashtra and concerned

agencies, except Respondent No.4 - Grampanchayat, Dhargaon, which

seems to be more interested in seeing that the facility does not come up

somehow, forgetting its fundamental Duty under Article 51A (g) of the

Constitution of India. The result was that by the resolution passed in

the meeting held on 26/1/2019 the Respondent No.4 refused to grant

No Objection Certificate to the Petitioner for setting up of the CBWTF. It

is this resolution, which has been challenged in this Petition.

4. We have gone through the resolution passed in the meeting

held on 26/1/2019. There was a similar resolution declining No

Objection Certificate passed by the Respondent No.4 in its meeting

earlier held on 18/12/2018. Both the resolutions impugned here are

non-speaking in the sense that they do not state any reasons for such

refusal. In fact, by the notification issued on 28/3/2016 by the Central

Pollution Control Board of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate

Change, a duty has been cast upon the local authorities, like

Grampanchayts to provide or allocate suitable land for development of

Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility in their respective

4/5 Judg.30.wp.4669.2019

jurisdictions as per the guidelines of the Central Pollution Control

Board.

5. We find that, in the present case, Respondent No.4 has

failed to perform its duty, so expressly imposed upon it under the

Central Government Notification dated 28/3/2016. We further find

that it also failed to discharge its fundamental duty under Article

51A(g) of the Constitution of India for protection and conservation of

the environment and keeping environment clean. Surprisingly, the

Respondent No.4 has refused to issue No Objection Certificate to the

Petitioner inspite of the fact that the Petitioner fulfills all the norms

including the important parameter of the proposed plant to be situated

away from human habitation. On the other hand, Respondent No.4

does not propose any alternate land owned by it for setting up of such

a plant, though it is well aware that scientific disposal of bio-medical is

in larger public interest. Such an approach adopted by the Respondent

No.4 is clearly against the interest of the society.

6. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned resolutions

cannot sustain the scrutiny of law, and therefore, both the impugned

5/5 Judg.30.wp.4669.2019

resolutions are hereby quashed and set aside by partly allowing this

Petition.

7. We direct the Respondent No.4 to consider issuance of No

Objection Certificate to the Petitioner, by passing an appropriate

resolution, keeping in view its fundamental duty under the

Constitution and also legal duty under Notification dated 28/3/2016

and interest of society as have been highlighted in this order, as

expeditiously as possible, and in any case within a period of two weeks

from the date of the order.

8. We also direct the Respondent No.1 to consider the prayer

of the Petitioner regarding extension of the Terms of Reference, in

accordance with law, and take a decision regarding extension at the

earliest, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of the

order.

9. Rule in above terms. No costs.

       (ANIL L. PANSARE J.)                  (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Yadav VG