JADAV SOAP WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed to quash the impugned orders/notices dated 16-12-93, 3-2-94 and 16-2-94 (Annexures-1, 5 and 6) to the writ application and with a further direction to the Respondents to forbear from giving effect to the aforesaid orders. Annexure-1 is a notice issued by the Member Secretary, Pollution Control Board, Assam with regard to the Air pollution caused by the industry of the petitioner and there a direction was given under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended up to date. That notice is quoted below :

(2.) The brief facts are as follows :- In the year 1948 the industry of the petitioners was established by the father of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 at Kedar Road. In the year 1981, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 was passed. On 29-9-92 and 13-10-92 a direction was issued by the Pollution Control Board for consent for the Small scale industries by the Central Govt. This is Annexure-B to the affidavit in-opposition filed by the petitioner against the modification order dated 2-3-94. On 16-12-93 the Respondent No. 4 asked the petitioner to close the industry. That is Annexure-1.On 22-12-93 the petitioners prayed for time and stated that no opportunity was given to show cause prior to issuance of the letter dated 16-12-93 and prayed for one month time to place its case and time was granted up to 13-1-94 by letter dated 29-12-93. The petitioner by letter dated 12-1-94 stated that it is a tiny/small industry and it manufactures laundry soap by manual method and it is like a cottage industry and no water and air pollution is involved in the process. This is Annexure-4 to the writ application. On 3-2-94 the Respondent No. 3 by letter asked the petitioner to comply with the provision of the Act of 1981 within 10-2-94. The petitioner by letter dated 9-2-94 requested for supply of application form and enclosed a pay order for Rs. 100/-. This is Annexure-5A to the writ application. That is quoted below :

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition as well as an additional affidavit-in-opposition have been filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 and affidavit-in-reply has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard Mr. B. R. Dey, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. P. G. Baruah, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 6 andMr. A.H. Saikia, learned Advocate for the Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 and the Central Govt.standing counsel for the Union of India, Respondent No. 1 and the learned Govt. Advocate, Assam for the Respondent No. 2 State of Assam.