M/s Nectafresh Agro Foods vs Uttarakhand Environment Protection & Pollution Control Board

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner’s factory has been closed by the order dated 18.4.2018 passed by the Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control

Board (from hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’). Admittedly, an inspection of the petitioner’s factory was carried out on 28.3.2018 and

it was found that the petitioner’s factory does not have the Effluent Treatment Plant in working condition. Subsequently, the respondent Board

passed an order dated 18.4.2018 under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 directing the petitioner to close

down the factory. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court.

Although, the order dated 18.4.2018 is appellable under Section 33-B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, but the ground

raised by the petitioner before this Court is that sub-rule (3) of Rule 34 of the Rules framed under the Act, provides that before issuing any direction

under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 at least 15 days’ prior notice shall be given to the person

concerned. Admittedly, it has not been done in the present case. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the date when the inspection was carried

out, the petitioner’s factory was closed on that day and so was the Water Treatment Plant.

Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon sub-rule (6) of Rule 34 which provides that in case where the Board is of the opinion that there is

likelihood of imminent danger to the environment, this notice may be dispensed with but with the reasons to be recorded in writing for dispensing with

such notice. However, in the impugned order no such reason or finding is given, as contemplated under sub-rule (6) of Rule 34 of the Water

(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975.

Considering that since the respondent has closed the factory of the petitioner without providing an opportunity of hearing and since Rule 34 has not

been complied with and presently the petitioner’s factory is lying closed, let a hearing be given to the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner

shall apprise all relevant facts to the respondent and thereafter the Uttarakhand Environment Protection & Pollution Control Board shall take fresh

decision and pass the order afresh under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. In case, the respondent Board

comes to the conclusion that the factor is actually polluting the environment, closure order, as contemplated under Section 33-A of the Water

(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, shall be passed. Since the order has to be passed afresh, the respondent Board is directed to consider

all the relevant parameters as well as pleas of the petitioner and then pass a speaking and reasoned order. It is made clear that till the fresh order is

passed by the respondent Board, the petitioner’s factory shall remain closed and it shall be opened only in case the petitioner’s representation

is decided in his favour.

With the directions/observations as above, the writ petition stands disposed of.