ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in letter dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (respondent no.2), whereby which a direction has been issued for closing down the petitioner’s unit and all its operations with immediate effect. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is doing the work of production of Bee Hive Hard Coke. On 14.10.2017, an inspecting team of the Regional Directorate of the Central Pollution Control Board, Kolkata conducted stack monitoring of the unit purportedly on the basis of a complaint received against the unit of the petitioner. The inspecting team submitted its report, based on which the respondent no.2 vide an order contained in letter no. IPC-V-SSI/Direction/13435 dated 10.11.2017 in purported exercise of powers delegated to him under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 1986’) directed the petitioner’s unit to close down all its operation with immediate effect on the ground that dense fugitive emission was observed coming out from the Coal Crushing Unit due to non-operation of back filters and thereby causing huge air pollution in the vicinity; and the analysis of the stock monitoring indicated that the emission of particulate matter from the stack was found to be 238 mg/Nm3 against notified standard of 150 mg/Nm3. The petitioner on receipt of the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 immediately represented the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 22.11.2017, however, the same was not responded. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that neither the copy of the inspection report nor the laboratory test report, as mentioned in the impugned order has been made available to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing. Even show cause notice was not issued to him prior to passing the impugned order. Moreover, the petitioner was also not furnished the copy of the complaint purported to have been made against its industrial unit leading to the said inspection. The respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order has exceeded the jurisdiction purportedly delegated in terms with section 5 of the Act, 1986. The impugned order is vitiated on account of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. The respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order has exceeded the jurisdiction purportedly delegated in terms with section 5 of the Act, 1986. The impugned order is vitiated on account of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the alleged shortcomings found against the petitioner’s unit during the inspection dated 14.10.2017, are purely temporary in nature which are rectifiable. However, in absence of a copy of the inspection report as well as the laboratory test report, the petitioner is not in a position to comment on the correctness of the contents thereof. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, vide Notification No.157 (E) dated 27.02.1996 and S.O.730 (E) dated 10.07.2002 has delegated the power vested under Section 5 of the Act, 1986 to the respondent no.2 to issue directions to any industry or any local body etc. pertaining to violation of the notified general emission and effluent standards under the Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986. It is also submitted that on receiving complaint, the Regional Directorate, Central Pollution Control Board, Kolkata got the inspection of the petitioner’s unit conducted on 14.10.2017 and during the said inspection the PM of unit was found not conforming to the standards of 150 mg/Nm3, as the same was found to be 238 mg/Nm3. Thus, the direction was issued under Section 5 of the Act, 1986 to the petitioner to close down its unit with immediate effect. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents have failed to bring any document on record to suggest that any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Rule 4 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 prescribes the procedure for passing the order under Section 5 of the Act, 1986 which reads as follows:- “4. Directions (1) Any direction issued under section 5 shall be in writing. (2) The direction shall specify the nature of action to be taken and the time within which it shall be complied with by the person, officer or the authority to whom such direction is given. Directions (1) Any direction issued under section 5 shall be in writing. (2) The direction shall specify the nature of action to be taken and the time within which it shall be complied with by the person, officer or the authority to whom such direction is given. (3) (a) The person, officer or authority to whom any direction is sought to be issued shall be served with a copy of the proposed direction and shall be given an opportunity of not less than fifteen days from the date of service of a notice to file with an officer designated in this behalf the objections, if any, to the issue of the proposed direction. (b) Where the proposed direction is for the stoppage or regulation of electricity or water or any other service affecting the carrying on any industry, operation or process and is sought to be issued to an officer or an authority, a copy of the proposed direction shall also be endorsed to the occupier of the industry, operation or process, as the case may be and objections, if any, filed by the occupier with an officer designated in this behalf shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedures under sub-rules (3a) and (4) of this rule: Provided that no opportunity of being heard shall be given to the occupier if he had already been heard earlier and the proposed direction referred to in sub-rule (3b) above for the stoppage or regulation of electricity or water or any other service was the resultant decision of the Central Government after such earlier hearing. (4) The Central Government shall within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the objections, if any or from the date up to which an opportunity is given to the person, officer or authority to file objections whichever is earlier, after considering the objections, if any, received from the person, officer or authority sought to be directed and for reasons to be recorded in writing, confirm, modify or decide not to issue the proposed direction. (5) In case where the Central Government is of the opinion that in view of the likelihood of a grave injury to the environment it is not expedient to provide an opportunity to file objections against the proposed direction, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, issue directions without providing such an opportunity. (5) In case where the Central Government is of the opinion that in view of the likelihood of a grave injury to the environment it is not expedient to provide an opportunity to file objections against the proposed direction, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, issue directions without providing such an opportunity. (6) Every notice or direction required to be issued under this rule shall be deemed to be duly served (a) where the person to be served is a company, if the document is addressed in the name of the company at its registered office or at its principal office or place of business and is either- (i) sent by registered post, or (ii) delivered at its registered office or at the principal office or place of business; (b) where the person to be served is an officer serving Government, if the document is addressed to the person and a copy thereof is endorsed to this Head of the Department and also to the Secretary to the Government, as the case may be, in-charge of the Department in which for the time being the business relating to the Department in which the officer is employed is transacted and is either- (i) sent by registered post, or (ii) given or tendered to him; (c) in any other case, if the document is addressed to the person to be served and- (i) is given or tendered to him, or (ii) if such person cannot be found, is affixed on some conspicuous part of his last known place of residence or business or is given or tendered to some adult member of his family or is affixed on some conspicuous part of the land or building, if any, to which it relates, or (iii) is sent by registered post to that person; Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-rule,- (a) "company" means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; (b) "a servant" is not a member of the family.” 6. The aforesaid provisions of Rules, 1986 specifically provides that before passing the direction under Section 5 of the Act, 1986, the person concerned has to be served with a copy of the proposed direction and is required to be given an opportunity of not less than fifteen days from the date of service of notice to file objection. The aforesaid provisions of Rules, 1986 specifically provides that before passing the direction under Section 5 of the Act, 1986, the person concerned has to be served with a copy of the proposed direction and is required to be given an opportunity of not less than fifteen days from the date of service of notice to file objection. The opportunity of hearing is waived in a case where the Central Government/Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (respondent no.2) finds that there is likelihood of a grave injury to the environment, however, the reason for not providing an opportunity of hearing must be recorded in writing. 7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 10.11.2017, it appears that before passing the direction under Section 5 of the Act, 1986 the respondent no.2 neither provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor recorded the reason in writing for waiving the same on the ground of likelihood of grave injury to the environment. Thus, the respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order in violation of the procedure laid down under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1986. 8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (respondent no.2) is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly following the procedure prescribed under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1986, expeditiously. 9. The operation of the concerned unit of the petitioner shall remain suspended till passing of the fresh order by the respondent no.2. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.