Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3646 (ALL)

Achchhe Lal Gupta Atta Chakki v. State of U. P.

2014-12-05

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The fourth respondent had filed a writ petition before this Court complaining of the activity of the petitioner in conducting a flour mill, which it was alleged, was causing noise pollution. During the hearing of those proceedings [Smt. Anita Sahi Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ - C No.23994 of 2014)], it transpires that a report had been submitted by the Regional Officer of the Pollution Control Board and a final decision was required to be taken. This Court directed the Board to take a decision within three weeks after due notice to the affected parties. In pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench on 28 April 2014, the Member Secretary of the Pollution Control Board has issued the impugned order on 14 August 2014 ordering closure of the unit of the appellant. 2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that a statutory remedy of appeal is provided under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Ordinarily, we would have relegated the petitioner to the pursuit of the alternate remedy, but for the fact that, in the present case, it has been averred in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition that the impugned order has been passed without serving notice on the petitioner and without being given an opportunity of being heard. In the impugned order, it has been stated that a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner under Section 33A of the Act of 1981, to which there was no satisfactory response. In the present case, it is urged that there is a breach of the principles of natural justice. 3. Having regard to the fact that the closure order would seriously affect the business of the petitioner, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by directing that a fresh order be passed in consonance with the principles of natural justice, by the Member Secretary of the State Pollution Control Board, after furnishing an opportunity of being heard, both to the petitioner and to the fourth respondent who is the complainant. 4. For this purpose, we direct that the parties shall appear before the competent authority on 15 December 2014 for hearing. 4. For this purpose, we direct that the parties shall appear before the competent authority on 15 December 2014 for hearing. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a response to the notice to show cause on the aforesaid date. 5. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations against the petitioner. The Court has been assured by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the operation of the flour mill has been stopped, though it has been disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent. Since the statement of the petitioner, in any event, is to the effect that the petitioner is not carrying out the operation of the flour mill as well as the attendant machines, we direct that the same position consequent on the order of closure, shall be maintained until the show cause notice is finally disposed of by the Member Secretary. The petitioner is at liberty to file a reply, treating the impugned order as a notice to show cause. The Member Secretary of the Pollution Control Board shall pass final orders in accordance with law thereafter within a period of one month from the date of the hearing. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.