Full Text
SUPER CASTING & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. T.S. Ahuja with Mr, Satish Kutnar, Advocate
Through Mr. Sanjeev Ralli with Mr. Sandeep Anand, Advocate for R-l
Mr. Anjum Javed with Mr. Ali Afsal, Advocate for R-2 with w.P.(c) 778u2010 & cM APPL 2016112010 SUPER ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. T.S: Ahuja with Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
VETSUS
DEL}{I POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE & ANR ..... ResPondents
Advocate for R-1. wirh w.P.(c) 778212010 & cM APPL 2016212010
1\OS. NAV BHARAT CASTING ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. T.S. Ahuja with Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
Through VIr. T.S. Ahuja with Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
Advocate VETSUS with w.P.(c) 778s12010 & cM APPL 2016s12010 i\4/S. ASHA FOUNDRY ..... Petitioner
Advocate VCTSUS
Through Mr. Sanjeev Ralli with \zlr. Sandeep Anand,
Advocate
Through VIr. T.S. Ahuja with Mr. Satish Kumar
Advocate VETSUS And oh VI/S. ASHA FOLINDRY ..... Petitioner
Through \ift. T.S. Ahuja with Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
VETSUS
ORDER
1. These petitions challenge more or less similar closure orders of the Petitioners' units passed by Delhi Pollution Control Committee ('DPCC') under Section 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 ('Air Act').
2. According to the DPCC these Petitioners who have been carrying on the activity of foundry for a long time are not complying with the pollution control norms. Further these foundry units are under the prohibited category of activities as per the Master Plan for Delhi 202I. Inspections were carried respective inspection report on the basis of which the impugled closure order was passed.
3. In the considered view of this Court, on this short ground, that none of these Petitioners was given a copy of the inspection report, which formed the basis of the impugned direction for closure, the direction for closure cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly.
4. The next question that arises is of the consequential order that has to be passed. Keeping in light similar orders passed by this Court on 19th October 20IO in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6975 of 2010 (White Machines v. DPCC) and 25rh October 2010 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 710712010 (Anupam Costing and Engineering lVorks v. DPCC), this Court considers it appropriate to direct as under:
(i) the DPCC will treat the impugned orders in each of the cases be treated as a show cause notice issued to each of the Petitioners by the DPCC. (iD It will be open to the DPCC to undertake an inspection of the Petitioners' premises within ten days from today without any prior intimation to the Petitioners. Any further inspection report will be got signed by each of Petitioners and a copy fumished to each of them and an order will thereafter be passed after giving the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard. / / a file for
(iii) In the meanwhile, it will be open to each of Petitioners to objections to the inspection report, handed over to leamed counsel Petitioners in Court today, within one week.
(iv) Any consequential order that may be passed by the DPCC pursuant to the above directions will be communicated to each of Petitioners within ten days after it is passed.
(v) If aggrieved by such order, it will be open to each of the
5. It may be recorded at this stage that learned counsel for the Petitioners on instructions stated that none of Petitioners will carry on any activity in their' respective foundries till 31" December 2010 or till they receive the order of the DPCC passed in terms of this order, whichever is earlier.
6. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. The pending applications are also disposed of.:'
7. Order be given dasti.
S.MURALIDHAR, J NOVEMBER 22,2OTO rk