M/S Monika Screener Plant Th Monika Sharma vs. J And K Pollution Control Committee Th Member Secretary Forest Complex Jammu And Others

Held

The Court, with the consent of both learned counsel for the parties, decided to dispose of the writ petition by treating it as a representation. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case strictly under the rules and as per law within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order along with the writ petition and annexures. The respondents were also directed to convey the decision to the petitioner through registered post or any other mode of conveyance. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the Consent to Operate or the validity of the NOC rejection order, as the petition was disposed of on the basis of the petitioner's request to treat it as a representation for consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Monika Screener Plant, sought a direction to respondents 1-3 (J&K Pollution Control Committee and its officials) to grant/renew its Consent to Operate for the year 2026-2027 for its screener plant-cum-stone crusher. The petitioner also sought to restrain respondents from withholding the application based on an order dated 26.02.2026, which had been kept in abeyance by the Court. The petitioner had obtained GST registration, permissions for change of land use from agricultural to commercial, and provisional registration from the District Industries Centre. They also secured a Consent to Operate for the screener plant valid until May 2026. An application for an NOC from the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, remained pending. The petitioner applied for consent to operate a stone crusher, but it was held pending by the Pollution Control Committee awaiting the NOC. After a previous writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the NOC application on 26.02.2026, stating land use permission was only for a screener plant, not a stone crusher. This rejection order was challenged, and the Court stayed its operation on 08.05.2026, directing reconsideration of the matter regarding title verification.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents can withhold the petitioner's application for grant/renewal of Consent to Operate for the year 2026-2027, particularly when the order dated 26.02.2026, which formed the basis for rejection, has been kept in abeyance by this Court? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they had obtained all requisite permissions, including land use conversion, and complied with all statutory and pollution control requirements. They contended that despite the Court staying the NOC rejection order and directing reconsideration, the respondents were arbitrarily withholding the Consent to Operate without any legal impediment, causing undue prejudice and financial loss. Respondents' arguments: The learned Dy. AG for the respondents stated that they were not averse to the petitioner's request, provided the case was directed to be accorded consideration under the rules and as per law.