HINDUSTAN AGRO CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides. We place on record our sense of appreciation of the gesture of the learned Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan in visiting the site himself and having a study conducted by Shri P. S. Rajvanshy.

(2.) SHRI K. N. Bhat, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that as the petitioners apprehended, the levels of compliance demanded from the petitioner are increasing as a reaction to the petitioner seeking judicial relief. He stated that the industries which were found within acceptable levels of pollution control till December 1993, were suddenly found unacceptable, and ordered to be closed down without a reasonable prior notice of the requirements which, according to the Board, were required to be complied with. This in itself, says Shri Bhat, renders the orders liable to be quashed and the petitioner awarded compensation. He suggested that the Board cannot now seek to invent and apply some ideal standards in the petitioner's case alone.

(3.) THE petitioners are at liberty to file a report on 29-3-1994, if they so choose. List on 29-3-1994 at 2.00 p.m. In the meanwhile, the Pollution Control Board is not prevented from - and it shall indeed be its duty to indicate-what, according to it, are such minimal requirements for grant of permission to re-start the industries or to permit any interim arrangements in this behalf.