Skip to content


Arati Brick Co. Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Commercial

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Judge

Reported in

(2009)156PLR22

Appellant

Arati Brick Co.

Respondent

State of Haryana and ors.

Disposition

Petition dismissed

Excerpt:


- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party..........1972, as amended by the amendment order, 1992 ( for short ' the control order'). para no. 3 of the said order, inter-alia, provides that no manufacturer or dealer shall manufacture, sell or offer to store for sale or disposal of the bricks except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted under the said order. clause no. 4 requires that every person engaged in manufacture or sale and storage of bricks would make an application to the district magistrate in the prescribed manner for the grant of a licence. the district magistrate is competent under the said provision to grant or renew or refuse to grant or renew a licence for reasons to be recorded in writing.2. the petitioner appears to have obtained a licence from the director, food & supplies, haryana consequent upon an exemption granted by the government in its favour from the rigours of the control order mentioned above. the validity of the said licence was assailed by the villagers residing in the vicinity of the kiln in civil writ petition no. 60 of 2004 which was allowed by a division bench of this court vide order dated 28.02.2005. setting aside the order passed by the director, food & supplies,.....

Judgment:


T.S. Thakur, C.J.

1. Manufacturing, sale and storage of bricks is regulated by the order known as 'The Haryana Control of Bricks Supplies Order, 1972, as amended by the Amendment Order, 1992 ( for short ' the Control Order'). Para No. 3 of the said order, inter-alia, provides that no manufacturer or dealer shall manufacture, sell or offer to store for sale or disposal of the bricks except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted under the said order. Clause No. 4 requires that every person engaged in manufacture or sale and storage of bricks would make an application to the District Magistrate in the prescribed manner for the grant of a licence. The District Magistrate is competent under the said provision to grant or renew or refuse to grant or renew a licence for reasons to be recorded in writing.

2. The petitioner appears to have obtained a licence from the Director, Food & Supplies, Haryana consequent upon an exemption granted by the Government in its favour from the rigours of the Control Order mentioned above. The validity of the said licence was assailed by the villagers residing in the vicinity of the kiln in Civil Writ Petition No. 60 of 2004 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2005. Setting aside the order passed by the Director, Food & Supplies, Haryana, in favour of the petitioner, the respondents were directed by this Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner as also any other person affected by the proposed grant of licence.

3. Pursuant to the above direction, the Government have passed a fresh order dated 04.05.2005 declining to grant any relaxation in favour of the petitioner from the requirements of the Control Order. The Government have taken the view that the proposed brick-kiln would violate the siting norms stipulated in the Control Order in as much as the proposed brick-kiln would be at a distance of only 300 meters from village Bhookadi as against 1 Kilometer stipulated under the Control Order. Similarly, the kiln would be at a distance of just about 290 meters from the village School and Nursery, 540 meters from Mata Mandir, 280 meters from Shivji Mandir and 340 meters from the village Gurudwara. The distance between the Kiln site and Ravi Dass Mandir is said to be 450 meters and between the kiln site and the orchards of Balwant, Madan Gopal, Gaurav and Ishwar Dayal is said to be 270 to 520 meters, as against 1 Kilometer prescribed under the Control Order.

4. Taking into consideration all these factors, the Government have expressed the view that it shall not be in public interest to allow the petitioner-company to run the brick-kiln at the site offered by it. It has, therefore, declined the request for relaxation of the Rules in its favour and accordingly turned down the application, The present writ petition assails the correctness of the said order.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the norms stipulated in The Haryana Control of Bricks Supplies Order, 1972, as amended by the Amendment Order,1992, require the brick kilns to be situated at least 1 Kilometer away from the village abadi, school, Dispensary/hospital, educational and public utility institutions, public parks, garden and Nurseries etc. The fact that the proposed brick kiln in the present case is in close proximity to the village abadi being just about 300 meters away from it is not denied. That this site is in a close proximity to the school, temples, Gurudwara and other public institutions including orchards belonging to the persons mentioned earlier, is also not in dispute before us. Indeed the report of the District Magistrate based on the Assistant Food & Supply Officer, Jagadhari's spot inspection report placed on record clearly certifies the distance mentioned earlier to be correct. In the circumstances, the Government was perfectly justified in holding that the grant of relaxation in favour of the petitioner-company from the requirements of the Control Order would not be in public interest. There is no gainsaying that a brick kiln is a potential source of pollution for the village abadi on account of emission of gases and ash etc. as also the suspended particulate material that remains hanging in the environment in and around the area where the kiln is established. In a number of cases that have come up to this Court, the villagers have found fault with the establishment of such kilns in their neighbourhood. In the circumstances, the decision on the part of the Government to strictly adhere to the norms stipulated under the order mentioned above in the general interest of the public living in the vicinity and to prevent any hardship or health hazard to the residents, cannot be said to be either unwarranted, irrational or perverse to call for interference in the exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.

6. In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //