ENKAY PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of 14 writ petitions, all filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raises common question. All the petitioners are having their manufacturing units within the limits of National Capital Territory of Delhi and all these units are manufacturing Urea Formaldehyde Powder. By impugned order dated 7/06/2000, Delhi Pollution Control Committee (for short 'DPCC') has treated these units under 'H' category as per Master Plan 2001 and following the orders of Supreme Court passed in I.A. 22/94 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 entitled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others, JT 1996 (6) SC 129, passed directions under Section 31A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 read with Rule 20(6) of Air Rules, 1983 directing these petitioners to close down their units with immediate effect. In order to effectuate this direction, other consequential directions are given to Delhi Vidyut Board and Delhi Jal Board for disconnection of electricity/power supply/cancel the permission of Diesel Generator Set, if any, and disconnection of water supply respectively. It is also directed that the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall ensure effective closure of the units with immediate effect. Since all the petitioners are manufacturing Urea Formaldehyde Powder which is placed in 'H' category and since all these petitioners were served with same directions, as mentioned above, albeit, vide separate impugned orders dated 7/06/2000, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, facts of C.W.P. No. 3238 of 2000 only are stated as it is an admitted case of the parties that the question raised in these writ petitions arise under similar factual background.

(3.) As per the averments made in C.W.P. No.3238 of 2000, petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It is a small scale unit manufacturing Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder (for short 'U.F. Moulding Powder') and is operating for the last more than 10 years. Apart from dealing with the various provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short 'the Act') the petition gives historical background leading to the closure of about thousand manufacturing units operating in Delhi by the orders of Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others, C.W.P. No. 4677/85 which were creating pollution. In the order dated 6/09/1996 passed in I.A. 22/94 in the said petition, it is revealed that individual notices to show cause were given by DPCC to 884 units in Delhi as to why they be not declared as category H(a) or H9BB industries under the Master Plan. After considering the objections, DPCC categorised 532 units as 'H' category. On this basis Supreme Court directed closure of these units which fell under 'H' category. Complete list of all the units to whom show cause notices were given was filed before the Supreme Court. As per this list an industry manufacturing U.F. Moulding Powder was categorised as 'F'. Therefore, they escaped the closure orders. They, accordingly, continued to function. However, notice dated 5/03/1999 was received by the petitioner from DPCC stating that activity of the petitioner falls in 'H' category. It was a notice under Section 31A of the Act and by this notice petitioner was granted an opportunity to represent as to why its unit should not be directed to be closed down as 'H' category industry as per Master Plan of Delhi 2001. Petitioner submitted its reply dated 17/03/1999 refuting all the allegations made in the notice and referring to proceedings before the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta case (supra), wherein as per affidavit fled on behalf of Central Pollution Control Board (for short 'Civil Procedure CodeB'), U.F. Moulding Powder was categorised as 'F'. The process by which U.F. Moulding Powder is manufactured was stated in detail contending that it was not hazardous at all. It was also stated that DPCC was confusing between manufacturing of U.F. Moulding Powder and manufacturing of formaldehyde and it is the latter which may be dangerous, fire hazardous or noxious activity but not the manufacturing of U.F. Moulding Powder. Nothing happened for more than one year after the aforesaid reply submitted by the petitioner. However, respondent ultimately sent order dated 7/06/2000 giving directions under Section 31A of the Act thereby directing the petitioner to close down its unit with immediate effect. The petitioner also states that earlier show cause notice dated 17/04/1998 was served upon the petitioner alleging that pollution control device in the premises of the petitioner was inadequate and, therefore, an explanation was sought. This, according to the petitioner shows that the petitioner unit was not treated as falling under category 'H' and it was only to provide pollution control devices in the premises which the petitioner did not informed DPCC vide reply dated 29/04/1998. Thereafter DPCC modified its directions dated 23/06/1998 which were also complied with and the compliance was informed by the petitioner to DPCC vide letter dated 13/08/1998. Notwithstanding, DPCC again with malafide intentions gave another show cause notice dated 2/09/1998 and this compelled the petitioner to file appeal under Section 31(1) of the Act before the Appellate Authority. After hearing. Appellate Authority passed orders dated 29/06/1999 whereby DPCC was directed to carry out the inspection of the premises of the petitioner and report to the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days. (The exercise which was to be undertaken by the DPCC was stipulated in the order in the following words: