Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1139 (PNJ)

Advance Cements Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana

2001-10-15

G.S.SINGHVI, M.M.KUMAR

body2001
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J. - This is a petition for quashing notification dated 5.12.1997 issued by the State Government under section 54 of the Air (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short, the 1981 Act) for amendment of Rule 15 of the Haryana Air (Prevention of Control and Pollution) Rules, 1983 (for short, the 1983 Rules). 2. The petitioners are operating cement plants in Ambala and Yamunanagar. They have challenged the impugned amendment mainly on the ground that the enhanced fee sought to be charged for operating the industries is arbitrary, capricious and wholly unjustified because there is no quid pro quo between the services rendered by the Haryana Pollution Control Board (for short, the Board) and the revised rates of fee. In support of their plea, the petitioners have relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.K. Puri v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1008. 3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Board, it has been averred that the fee levied under Rule 15 of the 1983 is regulatory in nature and not compensatory and, therefore, the principle of quid pro quo cannot be invoked while examining the validity thereof. It has been further averred that the rates of fee chargeable under Rule 15 of the 1983 Rules and similar rule framed under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, the 1974 Act) had remained unchanged since 1962 despite multi-fold increase in the functions and duties of the Board and, therefore, on a reference made by it, the State Government amended Rule 15 for levy of fee at the revised rates. 4. At the hearing, Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, counsel for the Board placed before us a copy of notification No. S.O.17/CA.14/1981/S.54/59 dated 25.1.1999 vide which the State Government has again amended the 1983 Rules and reduced the rate of annual fee chargeable from the highly polluting industries having capital investment of rupees one crore to three crores. He also submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed because the constitutionality and vires of the notification impugned in this petition has been upheld by this Court in CWP No. 5739 of 2001 - M/s. Tanna Agro Implex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai v. State of Haryana and another and 28 similar petitions decided on 7.8.2001. 5. He also submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed because the constitutionality and vires of the notification impugned in this petition has been upheld by this Court in CWP No. 5739 of 2001 - M/s. Tanna Agro Implex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai v. State of Haryana and another and 28 similar petitions decided on 7.8.2001. 5. We have gone through order dated 7.8.2001 passed in C.W.P. No. 7931 of 2001 and connected petitions. In those cases, the Court had considered the constitutionality and vires of notifications dated 5.12.1997 issued under the 1981 Act and the 1974 Act and held that the fee levied under the 1983 Rules and the Haryana Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975 was regulatory and not compensatory and, therefore, the principles laid down in K.K. Puris case cannot be applied for declaring the same to be unconstitutional on the ground of absence of quid pro quo between the amount of fee and the services rendered by the Board. 6. In our opinion. the proposition laid down in the case of M/s. Tanna Agro Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai v. State of Haryana and another and other connected petitions is squarely applicable to the case in hand and, therefore, it is not necessary to reiterate the reasons recorded in order dated 7.8.2001. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The detailed reasons recorded in order dated 7.8.2001 passed in C.W.P. No. 5739 of 2001 - M/s. Tanna Agro Implex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai v. State of Haryana and another and other connected cases shall be read as part of this order. Petition dismissed.