Full Text
SUPER CASTING & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. T.S. Ahuja with Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE & ANR ..... ResPondents
Through Mr. Sanjeev Ralli with Mr. Sandeep Anand, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Anjum Javed with Mr. Ali Afsal, Advocate for R-2
Through N4r. T.S. Ahuja with Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
Through Mr. Sanjeev Ralli with I\4r. Sandeep Anand, Advocate for R-l with w.P.(c) 7782/2010 & cM APPL 2016212010 VI/S. NAV BHARAT CASTING ..... Petitioner
Advocate VETSUS 2010:DHC:14063 & ANR ..... Respondents
Irft. Anjum Javed with Mr. Ali Afsal, Advocate for R-2 with w.P.(c) 778312010 & cM APPL 2016312010 ]WS. BHARAT CASTING ""' Petitioner
Through X4r. T.S. Ahuja with Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
VETSUS
& ANR ""' ResPondents
Through Mr. Sanjeev Ralli with \zlr. Sandeep Anand, with w.P.(c) 778412010 & cM APPL 2016412010 I\{/S. SANJAY FOTINDRY ""' Petitioner
Advocate
VI/S. ASHA FOLINDRY ""' Petitioner
Advocate VETSUS DE,LHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE
Through Mr. Sanjeev Ralli with \zlr. Sandeep Anand, wirh w.P.(c) 778712010 & cM APPL 20167120t0
VI/S. AMRIT FOUNDRY ""' Petitioner Advocate VETSUS
DELLII POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE &,ANR ""' ResPondents
And iWS. ASHA FOUNDRY
Through N4r. T.S.
Advocate VETSUS Ahuja with Mr. ..... Petitioner
Satish Kumar, & ANR ..... Respondents
Through IMr. Sanjeev Ralli with IW. Sandeep Anand, JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
22.11.2010
ORDER
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 zozL lnspections were carried respective inspection report on the basis of which the impugned 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 Z0I0 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6975 of 2010 (lVhite Mschines v. DPCC) and 25th October 2010 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 710712010 (Anupam casting und Engineering works v. DPCC), this court considers it appropriate to direct as under:
(i) the DPCC will treat the impugred 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 fuither inspection report will be got signed by each of Petitioners and a copy furnished to each of them and an order will thereafter be passed after giving the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard. b file
(iii) In the meanwhile, it will be open to each of Petitioners to objections to the inspection report, handed over to learned counsel for 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. (") If aggrieved by such order, it will be open to each of the Petitioners to seek such remedies as provided under the Air Act'
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 3l't 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 22,2010 rk