Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 48 (UTT)

Arham Technochem v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-02-03

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. DHYANI, J. 1. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Narendra Bali and Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocates for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. Shiv Pande, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. 4. Since the factual matrix of the aforesaid writ petitions and law governing the field is the same, therefore, the above noted writ petitions are being decided together for the sake of brevity and convenience. 5. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid writ petitions are that the petitioners were having consent to operate the unit and the said consent was given by the respondent-board. The industries were being run as per the terms and conditions of the consent given by the respondent-board. Before 10.12.2015, when the judgment was passed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal in Original Application No. 10 of 2015 (M.A. No. 27 of 2015, M.A. No. 744 of 2015 & M.A. No. 1094 of 2015), the applications for renewal of consent were pending at one stage or another. By impugned notices, the petitioners’ companies have been directed to close their establishments. 6. Yet, another direction has been given by the respondent-board to the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited to disconnect the power connections of the petitioners companies. 7. Supplementary affidavits have been filed on behalf of the petitioners to show that their cases are not covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal. 8. The facts, as to why their cases are not covered, have been indicated in different paragraphs of supplementary affidavits as well as in the writ petitions. 9. This Court need not to reproduce those paragraphs to avoid repetition of facts. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-board submitted, among other things, that the applications of the petitioners were not pending on the date when the judgment was delivered by Hon’ble National Green Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-board also submitted that the Board is ready to decide the representations of the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order at an earliest. 12. The writ petitions are disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, by directing the petitioners to move their representations before the respondent-board within a period of two days from today. 12. The writ petitions are disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, by directing the petitioners to move their representations before the respondent-board within a period of two days from today. Thereafter, respondent-board is directed to decide the representations of the petitioners within next seven days by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law. 13. Needless to say that the petitioners are required to enclose the copies of their respective writ petitions and copies of supplementary affidavits which they have filed in this Court today. 14. The petitioners are also granted liberty to file such other documents, as they feel necessary to strengthen their cause. 15. The impugned notices shall be kept in abeyance till the representations of the petitioners are decided by the respondent-board.