Full Text
MODELLAHOSPITALITYPRIVATELTD Petitioner
Through: Mr Mohit Mathur,Sr. Advocate with Ms Shikha Sapra and Mr Abhinav
Jaing,Advocates.
Through:
Respondents Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC, GNCTD with Ms Dacchita Shai and Ms
Shivani Vij,Advocates.
Mr Harpreet Singh Popli and Mr Mukul Girdhar,Advocates for R-1.
Mr Sumeet Pushkarna with Mr Kush Sharma and Mr Devanshu Lahiry and
Mr Prateek Rai and Mr Shail Ghai, Advocates for R-2/DPCC with Mr
Dinesh Jindal, Law Officer for
M/S STARLAND BANQUETS(A UNIT OF DELHIHOSPITALITY) Petitioner
Through: Mr Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Ms Shilcha Sapra and Mr Abhinav
Jaing,Advocates.
Through: Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC, GNCTD 2019:DHC:7607
11. with Ms Dacchita Shai and Ms Shivani Vij,Advocates.
Mr Harpreet Singh Popli and Mr Mukul Girdhar,Advocates for R-1.
Mr Sumeet Pushkama with Mr Kush Sharma and Mr Devanshu Lahiry, Advocates alongwith Mr Dinesh
Jindal,Law Officer/R-2(DPCC)
NEW KHALSA RESTAURANT THROUGHITS SOLE PROPRIETORSHPRITAM SE^GH Petitioner
Through: Mr Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Ms Shikha Sapra and Mr Abhinav
Jaing,Advocates.
Through:
Respondents Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC, GNCTD with Ms Dacchita Shai and Ms
Shivani Vij,Advocates.
Mr Harpreet Singh Popli and Mr Mukul Girdhar,Advocates for R-1.
Mr Sumeet Pushkama with Mr Kush Sharma and Mr Devanshu Lahiry and
Mr Prateek Rai and Mr Shail Ghai, Advocates for R-2/DPCC with Mr
Dinesh Jindal, Law Officer for DPCC.
12.
AND
M/S LA FORTUNA BANQUETS(A UNIT OF WARNER 2019:DHC:7607
■t
A.
HOSPITALITY) Petitioner
Through: Mr Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Ms Shikha Sapra and Mr Abhinav
Jaing, Advocates.
Through: Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC, GNCTD with Ms Dacchita Shai and Ms
Shivani Vij, Advocates.
Mr Harpreet Singh Popli and Mr Mukul Girdhar, Advocates for R-1.
Mr Sumeet Pushkama with Mr Kush Sharma and Mr Devanshu Lahiry and
Mr Prateek Rai and Mr Shail Ghai, Advocates for R-2/DPCC with Mr
Dinesh Jindal, Law Officer for DPCC.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions, inter alia, impugning separate orders, all dated 18.06.2019, whereby the petitioners have been ealleduponto closetherespective units being operatedby the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are in the business of operating the banquet halls and/or restaurants in the area ofMayapuri, New Delhi. Respondent no.2, DelhiPollutionControl Committee (DPCC),has issuedtheimpugnedorders as, on inspection, it was found that the petitioners do not have the requisite 'Consent to Operate' their respective units as required under the Air 2019:DHC:7607 (Preventionand ControlofPollution)Act,,981 andthe Water(Prevention and ControlofPollution)Act,1974
3. Whereasthepetitionerin W.P.(C)6950/2019hasyetnotcommenced e operation ofits unit, the other petitioners state that they have been operatingtheirrespective unitsforaconsiderableperiod.
4. Itis thecaseofthe petitionersthatthey had obtained the Consentto Establish and, thereafter, had applied for Consent to Operate under the relevantpollutionlaws,however,thesame hasnotbeengranted tilldate. It ISclaimedthatthesaidpermissions wereto beappliedforonline.However the Computer Server of DPCC is not functioning and, therefore, the' petitioners had faced serious difficulties in transmitting their respective applications through the online mode.
5. It is in the aforesaid context that the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders.
6. Atthe outset,itis necessaryto observe thatthereis no disputethatthe petitioners are required to obtain the necessary approvals (Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate)under the Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water(Prevention and Control ofPollution) Act, 1974. It is also not in dispute that none ofthe petitioners have been granted the Consent to Operate their respective units. Thus,indisputably, the petitioners are operating their respective units in violation ofthe above mentioned Pollution Control Laws. In this view,no reliefean be granted to the petitioners and they cannotbe permitted to operate theirrespective units.
7. It is also noted that by virtue of Section 25(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control ofPollution)Act, 1974,the consent would deemed 2019:DHC:7607 > tohavebeengrantedunlessrefused withinaperiodoffourntonthsfromthe date ofthe application.
8. However,given the peeuliar eireumstances ofthis case,this Court oonstdersttappositethatDPCCbedirectedtoprocesstheapplicationofthe petittouers as expeditiously as possible and,preferably,within a period of four weeksfrom today.Itisso directed.
9. MrMathur,learned senior counsel appearingforthe petitioners,on instructions,undertakes on behalfofthepetitioners thatthepetitioners will not carry on any activity pertaining to their respective units till the pethioners obtain the necessary Consent to Operate. Subject to the petitioners filing undertakings by way ofaffidavits to this Court within a period oftwo working days to the aforesaid effect-thatis,thatthey shall not operate their respective units till they have obtained the Consent to Operate-the respondents are restrained from taking any further coercive action.
10. The petitions are disposed ofin the aforesaid terms. Allthe pending applications are also disposed of.
11. Order dastiunder signatures ofthe Court Master. JULY 01,2019 MK VIBHU BAKHRU,J