SURYODAY WIRES Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the two orders passed by the respondent No.3 dated 15.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) and dated 14.11.2019 (P-2). Annexure (P-1) and (P-2) both are orders passed under the provision of Section 31(A) & Section 33(A) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974.

(2.) Vide Annexure (P-1) the respondent No.3 has exercising the powers under Section 31(A) & 33(A) of the aforementioned two Acts and also in the light of the directives given by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, (New Delhi) dated 10.07.2019 has directed the petitioner establishment to deposit the sum of Rs. 25 Lakhs as interim compensation to the respondent No.3 Board immediately, failing which the petitioner would be liable for proceedings under Section 37 of the Act of 1981 and Section 41 of the Act of 1974. Likewise, P-2 again is an order whereby the respondent No.3 Board has exercised the powers under Section 31(A) & 33(A) of the aforesaid two acts have directed the petitioner to forthwith close down GI wire plant and have further directed the concerned authorities which supplies electricity to the petitioner's plant to immediately disconnect supply of the electricity and other facilities to the petitioner's plant.

(3.) Primary contention of the petitioner assailing both the orders is that the two orders have been passed without a determination of the fact as to whether the petitioner establishment is a polluting establishment which would entail the payment of compensation in terms of order of NGT. According to the petitioners the two orders under challenge clearly reflects that the authorities concerned are yet to decide as regards whether there is any emission of polluted air or for that matter discharge of polluted water from the petitioner's establishment with which it could be ascertained that the petitioners are liable for prosecution under provisions of aforesaid two acts. It was also the contention of the petitioner that there is no final orders passed by the respondent No.3 Board on the basis of which the two orders could had been passed. According to the petitioner the consequence of Annexure P-1 & P-2 reflects that they have already held the petitioner's plant to be a polluting establishment without even affording the liberty of hearing to the petitioner and therefore the impugned action is in total violation of the principles of natural justice. It was also the contention of the petitioner that the action on the part of the respondent are perse illegal for the reason that there has been no sample of air emission collected from the petitioner establishment for getting it tested from an expert analyst. Likewise sample of sewage water or petitioner trade affluent from the petitioner's establishment also was not collected and sent for analysis. For this reason also the impugned orders are bad in law.