HIKAL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated February 15, 2022 issued by the Regional Officer-Navi Mumbai, of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (hereafter "the Board", for short). The impugned order is a 'closure' order of the petitioner's chemical factory at Taloja, district Raigad, under Sec. 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Sec. 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The petitioner was granted 72 hours' time to shut activities.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the impugned order was preceded by a show-cause notice dated January 14, 2022 issued by the Board as well as grant of personal hearing to the petitioner on February 14, 2022. Violation of natural justice in the sense that the petitioner was denied opportunity of defence and/or hearing is not alleged. Mr. Dwarkadas, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, however, assails the impugned order on diverse other grounds.

(3.) Mr. Dwarkadas contends that the Board by the order under challenge has brushed aside the contentions raised by the petitioner in its response to the show-cause notice as well as those advanced in course of personal hearing by simply observing that the same were 'unsatisfactory'. Such observation, though, is followed by several findings, but the same do not contain any independent reason in support of formation of opinion that the allegations levelled against the petitioner stand established. It is further contended that non-application of mind of the decision maker is patent, which has vitiated the decision-making process. Not a single evidence produced by the petitioner has been considered by the Board. Next, he contends that the Board proceeded to pass the 'closure' order with great haste without even waiting for the inquiry report of the duly constituted committee in terms of the order dtd. 18/1/2022 of the National Green Tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi (hereafter "the NGT", for short) in O.A. No.05/2022 and O.A. No.05/2022 (WZ) together with I.A. No. 8 of 2022. He also contends that shutting down the factory of the petitioner within 3 days is practically impossible having regard to the nature of its production activities. A sudden shut down of production activities and non-disposal of the stock within such time could be detrimental to public interest and the Board at least ought to have granted 15 days' time. Accordingly, it is prayed that the order under challenge be stayed.