The Gujarat High Court dimissed a PIL seeking closure of an industry making paper products over allegations of noise, air and water pollution, further imposing cost of Rs. 1 Lakh after noting that the allegations made in the petition were vague and frivolous as the industry was meeting all environmental standards.

In doing so the court observed PIL was filed by person who was a "busybody", seemingly for some personal grudge against industry with false and misleading assertions.

The PIL sought immediate closure of an industry alleging that it had caused substantial air, noise and water pollution. The petitioner alleged that he had made various representations were made to the state authorities including Gujarat Pollution Control Board to initiate an inquiry into the illegalities committed by the industry and to take necessary steps to cancel environmental clearance granted to it.

However, the authorities have chosen not to respond to any of such representation/applications. The petitioner contended that he has regularly interacted with persons in the vicinity in the course of regular routine conversation and it is well known that the industry-in-question (respondent No.8) is committing substantial nuisance and pollution affecting all residents staying in the vicinity.

It was alleged that the industry is located in village Sarigam, very close to the residential area and is in the business of manufacturing finished paper product and selling them in both domestic and international markets.

The plea claimed that there is no other industry in the vicinity and Sarigam GIDC is at a distance of 2 km.Thus, the industry is a standalone industrial unit at a distance of 100 mtrs. from the homes of tribal people who are residing in the periphery of the industry. It was asserted that there are four schools located within a distance of 500 to 700 mtrs. of radius from the plant and residential localities are nearby at a distance of 100-200-300-400 mtrs

A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray observed in its order that it had found "vague and misleading assertions" in the writ petition as well as rejoinder to GPCB's response by the petitioner regarding alleged violation of environmental norms by the respondent no.8 industry.

"In view of the categorical assertions made by GPCB that the respondent no.8 has obtained environmental clearance for a captive power plant using waste heat boiler without any auxiliary fuel and in view of Office Memorandum dated 23.01.2019 issued by the Ministry of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, the industry is exempted from obtaining prior Environmental Clearance for setting up new or expansion of captive power plant employing waste heat recovery boiler, which cannot be denied without any specific statement made in that regard in the affidavit-in-rejoinder, we do not find any substance in the submissions of the petitioner that the respondent no.8 – industry is being run without requisite permissions and sanctions from the competent authorities.

Further, having noted all assertions made by the petitioner in the writ petition in detail hereinbefore and from the affidavit of GPCB as also the reply submitted by the petitioner in the affidavit-in-rejoinder, it is more than evident that the petitioner herein, who himself is a businessman engaged in manpower supply business, for some reasons best known to him, has targeted the respondent no.8 – industry by making false statements in the writ petition about the said industry being operating without any environmental clearance, proper permission from the competent regulatory authority, being a standalone industry in a residential area, causing air, noise and water pollution in the locality and running its industry/unit against the environmental laws".

The bench found that all the assertions made in the writ petition, though were found vague initially as well, but since the matter being related to environment, the court had asked the GPCB to file a detailed reply to the allegations.

After going through GPCB's response and the findings in the the inspections carried out by it on the complaint made by the petitioner, the court said that the assertions made in the writ petition that no action has been taken by GPCB on the petitioner's complaint and other residents of the locality, is found to be false.

The court took note of the inspection reports and and the assertions made in the affidavit of GPCB and said that it indicates that the ambient air quality, noise standards as well as water quality are meeting the standards. The court further noted that the GPCB had in its affidavit stated that there were a number of industries located in respondent-8's vicinity and rejected the contention that it was a standalone industry in a residential area.

"The allegations of the petitioners against the respondent no.8 in the writ petition in that regard are, thus, found to be incorrect. None of the assertions made in the affidavit of GPCB are specifically denied by the petitioner in rejoinder. However, in reply to the affidavit of GPCB, various other assertions have been made by the petitioner in the affidavit-inrejoinder to explain as to what would mean by the ambient air quality, how an industrial areas are notified, etc.

For the aforesaid, it is more than evident that the present petition has been filed by a person who is none other than a busybody and seemingly for some personal grudges against respondent no.8 with false and misleading assertions made in the writ petition about the respondent no.8 - industry being a standalone industry causing air, noise and water pollution in the vicinity," it said.

Finding the PIL to be motivated and frivolous filed by a "busybody" the court dismissed it with cost of Rs. 1 Lakh for "for misuse of the process of the Court and wastage of precious judicial time of the Court.

Case title: SATYAJEET PARAS NATH RAI KUMAR v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) (WRIT PETITION (PIL)) NO. 24 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order