NITDIP TEXTILE PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner. Perused the case papers.

(2.) Petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs :-

(3.) Petitioner is an allottee of Final Plot No. 15 admeasuring 9107.51 sq.mtrs., situated at GIDC Phase I, Vatva, Ahmedabad, pursuant to which the lease deed dtd. 20/9/2017 came to be executed by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (for short GIDC). Subsequently, on 9/5/2018, petitioner has entered into agreement of sale with second respondent without possession qua 4001 sq. yards out of the total 10,893 sq. yards on certain terms and conditions. The said sale having not been concluded, resulted in petitioner getting a legal notice issued to second respondent demanding balance consideration and also called upon the second respondent to remove the purported chemical waste which is said to have been dumped in the land of the present petitioner within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the notice. Petitioner also filed a complaint with the first respondent - Gujarat Pollution Control Board (for short 'GPCB') on 3/1/2022, 19/2/2022 and 19/4/2022 alleging second respondent has been discharging contaminated water and hazardous chemical waste to the land belonging to the petitioner. Said representations were followed by reminders in the form of complaint filed under Sec. 9 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Due to in action on the part of the first respondent, petitioner approached this Court in Special Civil Application 20684 of 2022 seeking for a direction to the first respondent to consider the representations of petitioner in accordance with law, which resulted in an order being passed by this Court on 14/10/2022 directing the first respondent to consider the representations submitted by petitioner and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the claim. However, by the time this Court had issued a writ of mandamus on 14/10/2022, first respondent has already considered the same and had passed an order on 20/9/2022 (Annexure-G) itself, where-under the consent given to the second respondent to run the industry and discharge the effluent had been withdrawn in exercise of the power vested under Sec. 27 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 read with Sec. 33A, by directing the second respondent to close the operation of the industrial activity in the industrial Plot no. 15 GIDC, Vatva and also prevented the second respondent to stop the use of outlet for discharge of effluent at Plot No. 15 which had been permitted by consent order i.e., CTE No. 100980 dtd. 25/4/2019. It is this order of GPCB which petitioner claims to have been issued by second respondent and thereby it has given a cause of action for the petitioner to ignite the present proceedings.