CHANDRA ENTERPRISES Vs. CESS APPELLATE COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MESSRS Chandra Enterprises, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition objecting to the cess which has been imposed upon it by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1977. against the order of the Board, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Committee constituted under Section 13 of the Act, aforesaid, objecting to the levy of cess on the petitioners industry on the grounds (a) that it had not received any opportunity of hearing before the cess was made; (b) there was no provision to pass an ex -parte order under the Act; (c) the petitioner manufactures 'mill board' only and, in effect, for it's manufacture this is not an industry named in Schedule I to the Act, and the water which the petitioners consume does not get polluted as it is biodegradable and the cess which is charged is excessive and illegal. The Cess Appellate Committee sought objections of the petitioners and declined to recall the order by which cess of Rs. 16,726.50 had been imposed on the petitioners' industry for the period October 1982 to June, 1989. The Cess Appellate Committee has rejected each of contention of the petitioners and gave reasons for it. The Appellate Committee has not accepted the contention that the proceedings were ex parte as it has placed on record that the petitioners received a notice indicating a date and opportunity to comply with the provisions of the Act which the petitioners failed to do. In addition, the appellate committee has also placed on record that the premises of the petitioner were inspected on 25 February, 1989 but no representative of the petitioners joined in the inspection and proceedings, thus, were not ex parte. Simultaneously, the appellate committee also rejected the contention that, in the circumstances, the cess has not been rightly determined and the submission that the order was ex -parte was misconceived as the petitioners had at every given stage, the record reveals were conscious of the fact that they were under notice that their premises would be inspected. Thus, the Board has rightly assessed the cess, under the Act.

(2.) NONE of the contentions of the petitioner directly deal with the intention and purpose of the law by which cess is imposed. The contentions are that the petitioner does not manufacture paper but 'mill board'. The other contention is that water which it utilises and discharges after processing, is biodegradable.

(3.) IF arguments like this were to be permitted to defeat the intention of the law, then the very purpose for which the law has been made would be defeated. The intention of the legislation known as Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, is in it's preamble. It says: