AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 174 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.01.2018 passed by Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board. By the said
order, petitioner was directed to close down his unit, which was being run without consent of the Pollution Control Board.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that directions were issued to the petitioner; but, despite said directions, he neither applied for
consent of the Board nor cured the defects, accordingly by exercising power under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974 and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, petitioner was directed to close down its unit.
Since no industrial unit can run without consent to operate from concerned Pollution Control Board in view of the relevant statutory provisions,
therefore, there is no scope for interference in the matter.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.