BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
(PRINCIPAL BENCH)
APPEAL NO. 44/2012
IN THE MATTER OF
Girdhars International Private Limited
F-16, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road
Peera Garhi
New Delhi - 110041
.... APPELLANT
Versus
Delhi Pollution Control Committee
Department of Environment
4th Floor, ISBT Building
Kashmere Gate
Delhi - 110006
.... RESPONDENT
Counsel for Appellant:
Mr. Sumit Tomar
Counsel for Respondent:
Mr. Narender Pal Singh
2
JUDGMENT
PRESENT:
Justice A.S. Naidu (Acting Chairperson) Dr. G.K. Pandey (Expert Member) Dated 20th September, 2012 By consent of parties this Appeal is disposed of at admission stage.
M/s. Girdhars International Private Limited, has filed this Appeal assailing the directions issued by Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), vide letter no. DPCC/CMC- I/29126 to 30 dated 21st August, 2012, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 directing closure of the unit of Appellant as well as disconnection of electricity and water supply.
2. The Appellant is manufacturing candles at its unit located at F-16, Udyog Nagar, Peera Garhi, New Delhi since 2005. The unit is a small scale industry and is 100% export oriented. It is said that about 200 labourers (skilled and unskilled) are employed in this unit and the annual turnover is about Rs. 25 crores. This unit is coming under the orange category and is existing/operating since 10th November, 2006. It had obtained necessary consent from the Delhi Pollution Control Committee and the said consent was valid upto 6th June, 2009. The Appellant applied to DPCC for renewal of the consent on 4th September, 2009 in the prescribed Form. DPCC by order dated 2nd June, 2011 refused to grant consent for extension of the permission. DPCC also issued directions on the same day i.e. 2nd June, 2011 for closure of the unit and for disconnection of electricity and water supply. According to the Appellant, the Respondent DPCC did not issue any Show Cause Notice before issuing the order refusing to extend permission, and as such great prejudice was caused to the Appellant.
3. The Appellant after receiving the above order dated 2nd June, 2011 filed a representation before the DPCC, and brought to its notice, that it had complied with all the directions issued and stipulation made by the DPCC and that there was no reason for non-renewal of the consent to operate. It was further contended that from the test reports submitted by the Appellant, it would be evident that the unit was not a polluting unit. It is alleged that the test reports were not considered by the DPCC and without application of mind, the impugned direction dated 21st August, 2012 was issued under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, for closure of the unit and disconnection of electricity and water supply. The impugned order and directions having been passed erroneously are not sustainable in law. That apart, the orders were passed without given any opportunity to the Appellant to show cause, nor any opportunity of being heard was accorded, thus, according to Learned Counsel Mr. Sumit Tomar, there was gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and equity and the order cannot be sustained.
4. Mr. Sumit Tomar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Appellant's unit has been operating after obtaining necessary consent and has also applied for renewal of the consent in the year 2009, but unfortunately no action was taken by the DPCC till 21st August, 2012, when the impugned directions / orders were issued for closure of the unit and disconnection of electricity and water supply. Learned Counsel for the Appellant re-iterated that the said order / direction issued by the DPCC is illegal, arbitrary, without any justification and being in violation of the Principle of natural justice, should be set aside.
5. Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the stand taken by the DPCC and submitted that it was open to the Appellant to make fresh application as directed, in view of the changed circumstances. According to Mr. Singh, instead of filing fresh application, theAppellant insisted to extend the earlier permission, which was revoked as long back as on 2nd June, 2011 and did not exist in the eye of law.
6. We heard both the Learned Counsel and considered the materials placed before us including the direction issued by DPCC on 26th March, 2012 temporarily revoking the order directing closure of the unit and permitting the unit to function for a period of 45 (forty five) days. By the said order DPCC had directed the Appellant to apply afresh for consent to operate the unit. In view of the direction of DPCC issued on 26th March, 2012, we feel ends of justice would be better served, if the Appellant is permitted to apply afresh and seek permission to operate, within a period of two weeks hence. If the Appellant files an application within two weeks in proper format, enclosing all documents and fulfilling all requirements prescribed under law, the DPCC shall consider the same and take a decision within three weeks from the date of receipt thereof. Till a final decision is taken by the DPCC on the said application, no coercive action would be taken against the unit. In other words, the orders/direction issued by DPCC for the closure of the unit with disconnection of electricity and power supply shall remain stayed for a period of three weeks or till DPCC takes a decision on the application filed by the Appellant for according consent to operate the unit, whichever is earlier. The Bank Guarantees collected shall not be encashed.
7. The DPCC shall conduct such inquiry as deemed necessary and dispose of the application filed by the Appellant, in consonance with law. It is needless be said that if the Appellant do not file the application for fresh consent within one week, the impugned order shall operate. This order is passed by consent of Parties.
8. The Appeal is disposed of with no costs.
Dr. G.K. Pandey Justice A.S. Naidu Expert Member Acting Chairperson
No comments:
Post a Comment