BHARATESH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Petition is to the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1- Board on 26/11/2018. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice dated 16/11/2018 issued by the respondent No.1-Board was received by the petitioner only on 3rd December, 2018. Learned Senior Counsel therefore submits that passing of the impugned order is ex-facie in breach of the principles of natural justice. According to him, as the show cause notice is received after passing of the impugned order, neither the petitioner got an opportunity of filing reply to the show cause notice nor the petitioner was heard by the respondent No.1-Board as such serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner. On merits the petitioner has raised several issues.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 - Board submits that in The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Air Act" for short), the Appellate authority has been prescribed by the State Government under Section 31 ; whereas there is a statutory Appellate Forum available in The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Water Act" for short). In his submission, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy which the petitioner may avail. Nonetheless, on instructions, he submits that the respondent No.1- Board is willing to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(3.) We have perused record and the impugned order. There is no disputing the statement of petitioner that they have not been heard as the same is not contradicted by the other side. It is a settled principle of natural justice that the petitioner is required to be heard by the respondent No.1- Board before passing the impugned order. Based on this ground alone, we are of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded back to the respondent No.1 - Board.