Show ApplicationProcessingDetails

Id:

20224012

Approve:

false

Approve Note:

Clarification:

false

Clarification Note:

Date Created:

2022-10-20 07:46:13.383

File Note:

The case of M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills is under consideration for grant of consent under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The partners of M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills, Village Bhudan, Tehsil and District Malerkotla are Darshan Singh s/o Babu Singh and Amar Singh s/o Darshan Singh. Sh. Gurcharan Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh is opposing the grant of consent to operate to the Rice Sheller stating that he is the co owner of the land and that Darshan Singh had forged his signature on the affidavit and lease deed. Prima facie, believing the version of Sh. Gurcharan Singh, the consent of M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills was revoked but later on, after examination of the case on merits, the consent was granted to the Rice Sheller for a period of one year from 30.9.2020 upto 30.9.2021. Thereafter, though M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills has applied for renewal of consents to operate with the Board but the consent applications were returned to the rice sheller due to in-completions.                         Sh. Gurcharan Singh is making persistent complaints against the rice sheller in different departments including on the Punjab Pollution Control Board and has also obtained almost all the documents available on record of M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills. In fact, Gurcharan Singh and Amar Singh are the sons of Sh. Darshan Singh s/o Sh. Babu Singh. At present Darshan Singh and Amar Singh are the partners of M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills, Village Bhudan. The details of the case have been given in the note dated 15.10.2022 of the Assistant Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Sangrur and the same may please be perused. 2)                     Briefly stated Sh. Gurcharan Singh was consistently making complaints to the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs not to allot paddy to the rice sheller namely M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills. Relying upon sub clause (h) of Clause 4 of the Custom Milling Policy 2020-2021, which contains the eligibility conditions for allocation of paddy, the authorities of the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs have denied allocation of paddy to M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills. Clause 4 Sub Clause (h) of Custom Milling Policy 2020-2021 provides that “the mill premises and the miller should be free from litigation or legal disputes which attaches to the title, ownership or possession of the mill premises of the miller”. 3)                     Aggrieved against the decision of the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, not to allot paddy for custom milling, M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills has filed Civil Writ Petition No. 19698 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein Sh. Gurcharan Singh was also impleaded as respondent no.6. Sh. Gurcharan Singh has appeared and agitated the case through his lawyer. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has examined all the critical aspects of the case including the aspect of forged lease deed and affidavit. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 19.4.2022 has allowed the Civil Writ Petition filed by M/s Dharnesar Rice Mills and decided that the petitioner mill may be considered for allocation of paddy for the current milling session, subject to its availability and in case all other terms and conditions are satisfied. In this regard, paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the order dated 19.4.2022 of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 19698 of 2021 are reproduced herein below: 14.            In this regard, it would be pertinent to note that as on date there is no order from the Revenue Court or any civil court that the petitionerMill is not entitled to allotment of paddy from the procurement agencies. In fact, the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, who is the last authority in hierarchy dealing with the matter of revenue, has made it clear that status quo order dated 19.02.2019 (in the pending partition proceedings ) shall have no effect on the process of allotment of paddy by the food procurement agencies. The respondent department too in its written statement filed in the Civil suit has admitted to the exclusive possession of petitioner Mill, apart from submitting that the petitioner had delivered entire rice to FCI during the crop year 2016-2017. At present, Darshan Singh, Amar Singh and Gurcharan Singh are stated to be in possession of their 1/3rd share each. Under these circumstances, once Darshan Singh, father and his son Amar Singh are held to be in exclusive possession of the Sheller premises by the revenue authorities and even the Naksha Erra has been finalized, clause 4 (h) of the Custom Milling Policy cannot be invoked to deny allotment of paddy. There can also be no dispute with the fact that Darshan Singh is the owner of the land in question and his name is reflected in the revenue records. Therefore, the question of title and ownership cannot become a reason for the rejection of allotment of paddy to the petitioner Mill. 15.            The counsel for the private respondent No.6 has raised an issue that there is an FIR pending against Amar Singh partner, for forging a lease deed, and therefore, by virtue of the said clause 4(h) of the CMP 2020-2021, the Mill becomes ineligible for allotment. Counsel for respondent No.6 argued that an FIR has been registered on the ground that the lease deed had been forged in 2007 and by virtue of the said lease deed it is shown that respondent Gurcharan Singh has given his share in the land to construct a Sheller. It is argued that respondent No.6. never agreed to lease his share in the land to construct a Sheller. However, these arguments are without substance. Respondent No.6 had filed a Civil Suit No.251 of 2017 seeking permanent prohibitory injunction to be issued to respondent no 3 not to allot paddy to the Mill by citing the aforesaid alleged forgery and another Civil Suit No.512 of 2018 seeking injunction against Darshan Singh from raising any construction in the Sheller. The interim relief was declined by both courts, as were the appeal filed against the said orders. The argument regarding an alleged forged lease deed was taken into consideration while declining the relief. A relevant factor today would be that even though there is an FIR pending, the Civil Court has taken it into account and noticed that Darshan Singh and Amar Singh are in exclusive possession of the Mill and the land beneath it. The Naksha Erra has been prepared on the basis of a spot inspection done by the revenue authorities, in the presence of respondent No.6, and has attained finality. For the sake of argument, even if the lease deed is held to be a result of a fraud, the consequence of that would not take away the possession of Darshan Singh and Amar Singh over the leased land, which possession now is on account of the partition proceedings. 16.            In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 passed by respondent No.4 and the subsequently impugned orders passed by respondents No.3 and 2 respectively are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the instant petition is hereby allowed and the orders so impugned in the instant writ petition are hereby set aside. The petitioner Mill may be considered for allocation of paddy for the current milling session, subject to its availability and in case all other terms and conditions are satisfied.”     4)                     I have examined the case for grant of consent to operate to M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 in reference to order dated 19.4.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition no. 19698 of 2021 titled as Dhanesar Rice Mills v/s State of Punjab and Others. 5)                    The main objective of the Punjab Pollution Control Board is the prevention, control and abatement of water, air, noise and environmental pollution. The Board in my opinion cannot undertake to decide the civil dispute either relating to the title and ownership of land or some other similar dispute between the parties. According to the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, even the occupier, who has control over the affairs of the factory or the premises and the person in possession of the substance is eligible to obtain the consent to operate of the Board from pollution angle. 6)                     The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has considered and decided all the crucial aspect of the case in Civil Writ Petition No. 19698 of 2021. Various departments of the Government of Punjab in my opinion, cannot take diverse decisions and act differently in the case in view of the Judgment and order dated 19.4.2022 of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 19698 of 2021, which relates to the allotment of paddy to M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills, Village Bhudan. Relevant observations and decisions of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in order dated 19.4.2022 are reproduced herein below:             14.       ----------------------------------------             At present, Darshan Singh, Amar Singh and Gurcharan Singh are stated to be in possession of their 1/3rd share each. Under these circumstances, once Darshan Singh, father and his son Amar Singh are held to be in exclusive possession of the Sheller premises by the revenue authorities and even the Naksha Erra has been finalized, clause 4 (h) of the Custom Milling Policy cannot be invoked to deny allotment of paddy. There can also be no dispute with the fact that Darshan Singh is the owner of the land in question and his name is reflected in the revenue records. Therefore, the question of title and ownership cannot become a reason for the rejection of allotment of paddy to the petitioner Mill. 15.       ----------------------------------------             Counsel for respondent No.6 argued that an FIR has been registered on the ground that the lease deed had been forged in 2007 and by virtue of the said lease deed it is shown that respondent Gurcharan Singh has given his share in the land to construct a Sheller. It is argued that respondent No.6. never agreed to lease his share in the land to construct a Sheller. However, these arguments are without substance.  …………………………………………………………………………………………………             ………………………………………………………………………………………………….             A relevant factor today would be that even though there is an FIR pending, the Civil Court has taken it into account and noticed that Darshan Singh and Amar Singh are in exclusive possession of the Mill and the land beneath it. The Naksha Erra has been prepared on the basis of a spot inspection done by the revenue authorities, in the presence of respondent No.6, and has attained finality. For the sake of argument, even if the lease deed is held to be a result of a fraud, the consequence of that would not take away the possession of Darshan Singh and Amar Singh over the leased land, which possession now is on account of the partition proceedings. <span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Raavi; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: PA;">7)                     I am of the opinion that the registration of FIR, the question of title and ownership of land cannot be a reason for denial of consent to operate from pollution angle to M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills, in view of the above stated position and the order dated 19.4.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 19698 of 2021 (M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills v/s State of Punjab and Others) with regard to the allotment of paddy. Hence, I am of the further opinion that consent to operate under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 may be granted to M/s Dhanesar Rice Mills, Village Bhudan, Tehsil and District Malerkotla with suitable conditions and with the condition that the consent to operate shall be subject to the decision of the Court(s) in any litigation which is pending between the parties.

Inspection:

false

Inspection Note:

Officer:

PPCB160

Reject:

false

Reject Note:

Role:

SLO Amrik SIngh