Uttarakhand High Court
Rohan Chandrawati vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 13 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 217 OF 2023
13TH FEBRUARY, 2024
Rohan Chandrawati ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State /
respondent Nos. 1 and 3
: Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for respondent No. 2
: Mr. Rajeev Bhatt, learned counsel
for respondent No. 4
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri)
Urgency Application (IA No. 03 of 2024)
Counsel for the respondent State Pollution
Control Board had put in appearance. He states that he
has already filed a detailed reply giving reference to the
policy applicable as per today with respect to the
distance of a screening plant from a school.
2) Keeping in view this fact, this urgency
application is allowed. The main case is being taken up
for final disposal, today itself.
3) The petitioner in the writ petition at page 39 of
the paper book has referred to policy dated 19.11.2016
in respect of stone crusher and screening plant, and at
page 39 of the paper book, as per the chart, the
distance of a screening plant from a school, educational
institution, hospital and nursing home has to be 100
meters, as per this policy. The petitioner has further
states that the screening plant of respondent No. 5 was
set up in 2018.
4) On notice on this petition, a reply dated
26.12.2023 has been filed by respondent No. 2, i.e.,
State Pollution Control Board, and they have placed on
record the latest policy dated 21.07.2020, issued by the
State Government, and in this policy at page 31, the
distance parameters have been revised. As per revised
parameters the distance of a screening plant from
school, hospital and nursing home should be 300
meters. However, in the policy at page 37, in Chapter
III, Section 2, it is provided that the new parameters of
distance will not be applicable to the pre-existing units,
and rest of the conditions in the policy dated 21.07.2020
will be followed by all the units.
5) Since the policy has clarified that distance
parameters have not to be changed, the initial distance
as reflected at page 39 of the paper book are to be
followed, which requires 100 meters distance from the
school, hospital and nursing home.
6) In paragraph 5 of the reply filed by the
respondent No. 2 it is mentioned that as per the
inspection report one Hampton Public School is situated
about 190 meters south and Kosi river is situated at a
distance of 600 meters, and the distances fulfill the
standards as prescribed in a stone crusher policy of
2016.
7) Since the policy of distance which is to be
followed by the respondent No. 5 is 2016 policy, and this
condition is duly fulfilled, no cause of action survives in
this public interest litigation, it is being disposed of.
8) On a request made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, liberty is granted to him that he can make a
representation, if so advised, to the State Government,
respondent No. 1 herein, if any cause of action still
survives.
_______________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
___________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Dt: 13TH FEBRUARY, 2024
Negi
