Full Text
MAYAPURICETP SOCIETY Petitioner
Through: Counsel(appearance notgiven),
Through: Mr Manish Mohan,CGSC and Ms Manisha Saroha, Advocate for R-
1/UOI.
Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC for GNCTD with Ms Shivani Vij, Advocate.
Ms Anusuya Salwan, Standing Counsel, DSIIDC with Ms Nikita
Salwan and Ms Shreya Sharma, Advocates for R-5/DSIIDC.
NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA CETP SOCIETY Petitioner
Through: Counsel(appearance not given),
Through: Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC for Advocate.
AND
DSIIDC AND UDYOG NAGAR CETP SOCIETY Petitioner
Through: Counsel(appearance not given).
2019:DHC:7801
Through: Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC for Advocate.
21.02.2019
ORDER
1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions impugning the orders passed by the Appropriate Authority under the provisions ofthe Delhi Common Effluent TreatmentPlants Act,2000.
2. Mr Gautam Narayan, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 (Government of NCT of Delhi - GNCTD) points out that the petitioners have equally efficacious remedy by way of an appeal under Section 13 ofthe said Act.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contests the aforesaid submission by referring to the order dated 04.02.2014 passed by the Supreme Court in various applications filed in Writ Petition (Civil) 4677/1985 captioned M.C. Mehta v. Union ofIndia & Ors. A perusal ofthe order indicates that the Supreme Court had directed the applicants therein to file an appropriate writ petition before the High Court and had further observed that ifthe said writ petitions were filed within a period ofone month from today,the Fligh Court would consider the same withoutreference to the period oflimitation.
4. According to the petitioners, respondent no.2(GNCTD)ought to have filed a writ petition since it was one ofthe applicants before the Supreme Court and had sought certain directions. It is submitted that since respondent no.2 had not done so,it is now precluded from issuing orders for recovery of the amount from the petitioners. The said contention is unpersuasive. The orders impugned herein are passed by the Appropriate Authority in exercise of functions under the Delhi Common Effluent Treatment Plants Act,2000. It was not necessary for respondent no.2 to have preferred any writ petition for seeking recovery ofany amountfrom the writ petitioners in this regard.
5. In view ofthe above,the petitions are disposed ofleaving it open for the petitioners to avail of the alternate remedy under the Delhi Common Effluent TreatmentPlants Act,2000.
6. It is clarified that ifsuch appeal(s)are filed within a period ofone week from today, the same would be considered by the appellate authority uninfluenced by the question ofdelay.
7. The pending applications are also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU,J FEBRUARY 21,2019 RK