Haryana: HC nod to shifting of stone crushers to identified spots
Vital to remove stone crushers from near urban centres to maintain ecological balance says Punjab and Haryana high court.
In an important judgment, the Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the 2016 notification of the Haryana government on shifting of stone crusher units from nearby urban centres in various parts of the state to identified spots to maintain ecological balance.
“…the environmental requirements are not static, as they must be dynamic. With the development in the area, the priority of the government is to maintain ecological balance as a part of its responsibility to ensure sustainable development, environmental protection and welfare of its citizens. The government holds a unique and critical role in maintaining ecological balance through policies, enforcement and taking proactive and ethical responsibility for the environment to ensure balance between development and conservation,” the bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Anil Kshetarpal observed while dismissing the pleas from stone crusher owners, who were told to shift their units following the 2016 notification.
As per state’s additional advocate general, Ankur Mittal, existing units, would have to shift to identified zones as per 2016 and subsequent notifications and new units can be established strictly in these zones and only after they fulfill the norms as enumerated in the policy. The 2016 policy identified zones and spelt out other conditions such as distance from urban centres, forest, educational institutions; and state and national highways etc.
In over two dozen petitions filed over a period of time since 2018, the stone crusher owners had argued that their units were established after taking all statutory permissions and now at a belated stage can’t be asked to shift operations. In other petitions, some other conditions were under challenge.
Right to life is higher than the rights to carry business: HC
The high court said that although stone crushers are a vital sector from a socioeconomic perspective, but they generate significant amounts of fine fugitive dust. The dust poses serious health risk to workers and nearby communities, contributing to respiratory illnesses. Additionally, it diminishes visibility, inhibits vegetation growth, and negatively impacts the area’s aesthetics. To mitigate or control these emissions, measures must be implemented, it said.
“Right to life is higher than the rights flowing from Article 19 i.e. to carry business. The business of stone crushers is considered res extra commercium (the thing outside of commercial intercourse) and is, therefore, subject to stringent regulation. The pollution caused by the stone crushers is inherently injurious to the health of all living beings including humans, wildlife, rivers and plants. The efforts made to maintain delicate ecological balance which is the need of the hour particularly in view of rising pollution is not required to be interfered with (by the courts),” the bench asserted.
The court made it clear that protection of the environment is a dynamic and evolving responsibility that requires constant adaptation to address emerging challenges and prevent degradation. “Activities that pose a significant risk to ecological balance, such as the stone crushing operations, demand stringent regulatory oversight to safeguard natural resources and the wellbeing of all living beings. Upholding these principles not only aligns with constitutional and legal obligations but also secures the planet’s health for future generations,” it said, dismissing the pleas.
The court further said that environmental laws prioritise public interest, as a result the government must act in alignment to the requirements of time. “…public interest must over-ride any consideration of private loss and gain. ...The government must be permitted to modify its stance if overriding public interest demands it. In situations where public interest prevails, the principle of estoppel (preventing one person from contradicting a statement from the past) cannot be enforced in a rigid manner,” the court said rejecting the argument from the petitioners that they have made huge investments and now after many years government can’t go back on its words.