SUPER CASTING & ANR v. DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE & ANR

Delhi High Court · 22 Nov 2010 · 2010:DHC:14059
S. Muralidhar
W.P.(C) 7780/2010 & CM APPL 20160/2010
2010:DHC:14059
administrative appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court set aside closure orders by the Pollution Control Committee for failure to provide inspection reports to petitioners, directing fresh inspections and adherence to natural justice.

Full Text
Translation output
D~ ~ $,- HIGH COURT OF DELHI I
W.P.(C) 7780/2010 & CM APPL 20160/2010
SUPER CASTING & ANR Petitioners
Through Mr. T.S. Ahuja with Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE & ANR Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjeev Ralli with Mr. Sandeep Anand, •
Advocate for R- 1.
Mr. Anjurn Javed with Mr. Ali Afsal, Advocate for R-2
WITH
W.P.(C) 7781/2010 & CM APPL 20161/2010
SUPER ENTERPRISES Petitioner Advocate
VERSUS
I
Mr. Anjum Javed with Mr. Ali Afsal, Advocate for R-2
WITH
W.P.(C) 7782/2010 & CM APPL 20162/2010
MIS. NAV BHARAT CASTING Petitioner Advocate 2010:DHC:14059
0/ / & ANR . Respondents
WITH
W.P.(C) 7783/2010 & CM APPL 20163/2010
MIS. BHARAT CASTING Petitioner Advocate
VERSUS
WITH
W.P.(C) 7784/2010 & CM APPL 20164/2010
MIS. SANJAY FOUNDRY Petitioner Advocate .
VERSUS
WITH
W.P.(C) 7785/2010 & CM APPL 20165/2010
M/S. ASHA FOUNDRY Petitioner (9
VERSUS
WITH
W.P.(C) 7786/2010 & CM APPL 20166/2010
MIS. ADARSH ENTERPRISES Petitioner
•
Advocate
VERSUS
Advocate forR-1.
IVIr. Anjum Javed with Mr. Ali Afsal, Advocate for R-2
WITH
W.P.(C) 7787/2010 & CM APPL 20167/2010
MIS. AMRIT FOUNDRY Petitioner
Through Mr. T.S. Ahuja with Mr. Satish Kurnar, Advocate
VERSUS
And 7) respective inspection report on the basis of which the impugned closure order was passed.
JUDGMENT

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 2010 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6975 of 2010 (White Machines v. DPCC) and 251h October 2010 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7107/2010 (Anuparn Casting and Engineering Works v. DPCC), this Court considers it appropriate to direct as under: 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. 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 furnished to each of them and an order will thereafter be passed after giving the Petitioners an t. In the meanwhile, it will be open to each of Petitioners to file objections to the inspection report, handed over to learned counsel for Petitioners in Court today, within one week. 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. a •

(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 st December 2010 or till they receive the order of the DPCC passed in terms of this order, whichever is earlier. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. The pending applications are also disposed of. Order be given dasti.

S.MURALLDHAR, J NOVEMBER 22, 2010