M/S Eagle Sanitation v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. The prayer in the instant petitions is for the setting aside of the orders issued by Respondent No. 2/ Delhi Pollution Control Committee (“DPCC”), both of which are dated 01.05.2025. By way of the said orders, Respondent No. 2 has imposed environment compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- upon the petitioners for environmental damage. The said orders have been passed in furtherance of impugned Show Cause Notices issued by Respondent No. 2, both of which are dated 10.01.2025.

2. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the reply filed by them, and without affording a hearing opportunity, in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. At this stage, it may be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the impugned orders. The order dated 01.05.2025, passed by Respondent No. 2 in W.P.(C) 7580-2025, records the following observations vis-à-vis the reply filed by the petitioner: “And whereas, the addressee unit has submitted a reply on 23/01/25 & 24/02/2025 which is found to be not satisfactory by the competent authority”

4. Similarly, the order dated 01.05.2025, passed by Respondent NO. 2 in W.P.(C) 7575-2025, records the following observations vis-à-vis the reply filed by the petitioner: “And whereas, the addressee unit has not submitted any reply to the abovementioned SCN.”

5. A bare perusal of the above extracts shows that Respondent NO. 2 has failed to give due consideration to the replies filed by the petitioners, or even lay down the reasons as to why such reply was found not satisfactory. Moreover, the Court finds that the observation recorded in W.P.(C) 7575-2025, is entirely erroneous, considering that the petitioner had, in fact, filed a reply, and the same was even acknowledged by Respondent No. 2. Therefore, the impugned order shows a complete non-application of mind on the part of Respondent No. 2.

6. This Court, in Hi-Print Corporation v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.1; M/s India Navigation Company v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.2; and Mangolpuri Industrial Area Phase 1 & 2 CETP Society v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Ors.[3] has set aside similar actions of the DPCC. In Mangolpuri (supra), the Court made the following observations:

7. Therefore, the Court finds that the impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical and cryptic manner, reflecting nonapplication of mind. In the absence of reasons, the petitioners would be precluded from effectively seeking further remedy.”

7. The Court, therefore, observes that the„one-line rejection‟ approach adopted by Respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned orders, does not withstand the scrutiny of law. The reasons for „nonsatisfaction‟ must be explicit and discernible from a perusal of the order. In the instant petitions, however, no such reasons have been recorded.