PULSAR CERAMIC Vs. GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed calling in question the notice dtd. 11/12/2019 (Annexure-B), whereunder the respondent has proposed to take coercive action against the petitioner on the premise that said authority has been issued directions by National Green Tribunal. Pursuant to the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal on 6/3/2019, the Committee submitted a report whereunder it recommended for interim environment damage compensation. Hence, notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 11/13/9.2019 under which it proposes to implement the order of NGT. Undisputedly, petitioner has replied to the said notice on 1/2/2020 (Annexure-G). Hence, it would be open for the respondent-GPCB to adjudicate the said notice, if necessary by affording opportunity to the petitioner of personal hearing.

(2.) Though Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner has tried to make a valiant effort to drive home the point that said decision arrived at by the GPCB requires to be interfered by this Court, we are not persuaded to accept the same in the teeth of the authoritative principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.N. Jeevaraj vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors ., reported in 2016 (2) SCC 653, whereunder, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that

(3.) In other words, the performance of the duty by a statutory authority is required to be allowed to be performed by the said statutory authority. This Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 would not usurp such power unless the illegality is prima facie made out or there being any other exceptional circumstances and it cannot be as a matter of routine. It is no doubt true that while exercising the power under Article 226 , this Court has the power of judicial review of an administrative action. Under the said guise, this Court would not takeover the reins of the administration and interject the authority vested to exercise such power. The Hon'ble Apex Court in D.N. Jeevaraj's case (supra) has held;