Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 536 (ORI)

Biswaranjan Sahoo v. Regional Officer

2010-07-31

B.P.DAS, C.R.MOHAPATRA

body2010
ORDER 31.07.2010 — Admit. It is stated that copy of the memorandum of appeal has been served on respondent no.1-the Regional Officer, State Pollution Control Board, Orissa, Angul, as well as respondent no.2-State Pollution Control Board, Orissa through their Law Officer. There¬fore, no notice need be issued to them. No notice need be issued to respondent nos. 3 and 4. Considering the nature of dispute involved in the present appeal, the appeal was taken up for hearing and final disposal, with consent of Shri J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Shri B.P. Pattajoshi, learned Law Officer of re¬spondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Heard. The appellant-M/s. Sarala Stone Crusher, through its Occupier Shri Biswaranjan Sahoo, has preferred this appeal under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (in short “the Act”) with a prayer to set aside the order dated 17.6.2010 passed by the Regional Officer of the Board at Angul, vide Annexure-7, revoking the consent to operate granted in favour of the appellant unit, which was valid till 31.3.2011, and instructing the appellant to stop operational activities in compliance of the provisions under Section 21 of the Act. The appellant unit is established on plot no. 5582 of Khata no. 798 in village Karanda under Hindol Tahasil of Dhenkanal district. 3. It is worthwhile to mention here that aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2008 passed by the Board granting consent to operate in favour of the appellant unit, one Duryodhan Behera representing the villagers of Thokar and Karanda had preferred an appeal being Appeal No.1-A of 2010 before this Authority making an allegation that the consent to operate the unit was granted in violation of the siting criteria notified by the State Govt. in the Forest and Environment Department dated 13.5.1998. On 6.2.2010 notice of admission in the above appeal was issued and on 6.3.2010 Shri S.K. Dash, Advocate, appeared for respondent no.4 therein, i.e., the present appellant and on the submission of the learned Law Officer of the Board that the Board had al¬ready written a letter to the Collector, Dhenkanal, requesting him to verify the site of the appellant unit along with the Regional Officer of the Board at Angul and submit the inspection report for being placed before this Authority, we adjourned the appeal awaiting report of the Collector. Ultimately on 19.6.2010 learned Law Officer of the Board produced before us the report of the Tahasildar, Hindol, dated 11.5.2010 regarding measurement of the distance of the respondent unit as well as the letter dated 17.6.2010 in which the Regional Officer of the Board had revoked the consent to operate respond¬ent no.4 unit on the ground of violation of the siting criteria in regard to its location from the nearest villages, namely, Karanda and Thokar Dullavpur. In view of revocation of consent to operate by the Regional officer on the ground of violation of the sitting criteria, the prayer of the appellant for revocation of the consent to operate had become infructuous for which we dis¬missed the appeal without going into the merits of the appeal. 4. In the present appeal, the appellant crusher unit has challenged the aforesaid order of revocation in Annexure-7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of revocation is vitiated in law inasmuch as the same has been passed in oblivion to the principle of natural justice since no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the appellant before passing the impugned order of revocation. 5. Learned Law Officer of the respondent-Board submits that notice had not been given to the appellant because the matter was pending before this Authority in the appeal filed at the instance of the villagers and after it was found by the Regional Officer that the unit has been established violating the prescribed siting criteria, the order of revocation of consent to operate has been passed. 6. There is no dispute that the impugned order of revoca¬tion in annexure-7 has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The second proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act mandates that a reasonable opportu¬nity of being heard shall be given to the person concerned before cancelling a consent or refusing a further consent under the first proviso to the aforesaid sub-section. Furthermore, in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that a party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature. Furthermore, in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that a party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature. The principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condem¬ned unheard, is a part of the rules of natural justice. The Hon’ble Court further held that natural justice is a great human¬izing principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. The law must now be taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable. 7. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order of revocation of consent to operate in Annexure-7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of revocation in Annexure-7 and direct the appellant to appear before the Regional Officer in the first hour of 10.8.2010. Since the order in Annexure-7 clearly discloses the reason for revoca¬tion of the consent, the appellant treating Annexure-7 as the notice to show cause file show cause reply, if any, within seven days of his appearance. The R.O. and the Revenue Authority shall make measurement regarding the distance of the unit from the nearby village in presence of the appellant and take a decision on the same by end of September, 2010 taking into consideration the sitting criteria prescribed by the State Govt. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed.