AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy, CJ
All these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment since the issue involved in these writ petition is same.
The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court challenging the Show Cause Notices, dated 23rd June, 2020 (Annexure PÂ26) issued by
the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') on various grounds, including, jurisdiction, want of
authority, vagueness, cryptic and nonÂcompliance of the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to
as 'Water Act') and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Environment Protection Act').
It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the impugned Show Cause Notices have been issued by the
Board in terms of Section 33A of the Water Act, which empowers the Board to issue any direction or notice, whereas the impugned Show Cause
Notices in the instant writ petitions have been issued by the Member Secretary of the Board, who is only an Officer/Authority of the Board and
cannot be considered as a 'Board'. He further submits that the resolution, dated 10th June, 1996, as submitted by the Board, authorizing the Member
Secretary of the Board to issue notices/directions under the provisions of Water and Environment Protection Acts, is impermissible and contrary to
law and legislative intent as Section 33A of the Water Act authorizes the Board to exercise power to give directions whereas the impugned Show
Cause Notices have been issued by the Member Secretary and not by the Board.
His next ground of attack is that the Member Secretary, who has issued the impugned Show Cause Notices, has referred the case pending before
the National Green Tribunal wherein the petitioners are not a party.
He further submitted that it has been recorded in the Show Cause Notices that the petitioners have emitted the treated effluent into the river and in
case the reply is not given within the time stipulated, the respondentÂBoard would close down the effluent plant by exercising powers under Section
33A of the Water Act and Sections 7 & 15 of the Environment Protection Act and also that Environment Compensation to the tune of ₹ One Crore
will be imposed on the petitioners for polluting the river, however, there is no such provision under the Acts mentioned (supra) and moreover, before
imposing any Environment Compensation and passing the orders exercising the powers under Section 33A of the Water Act, the petitioners should
have been given an opportunity of hearing in this regard.
In this background, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned Show Cause Notices issued by the Member
Secretary of the Board deserve to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondentÂBoard supported the Show Cause Notices issued by the Member Secretary of the
Board. Apart from the grounds taken in the Grounds of Defence submitted on maintainability, learned counsel for the respondentÂBoard, in order to
substantiate his submissions, has referred to the judgments in Panj Peer Stone Crusher versus State of Punjab, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 8046L; axmi
Suiting and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2013 LawSuit (Raj) 1110; Goa Foundation versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2014) 6 SCC
590; and M.C. Mehta and Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors., MANU/GT/0067/2017.
It is his submission that the Water Act provides an alternative remedy under Section 33B of the Water Act to prefer an Appeal before the National
Green Tribunal if any person is aggrieved by any order/directions issued by the Board under Section 33A of the Water Act and in case the petitioners
were aggrieved, they should have preferred an Appeal before the National Green Tribunal instead of approaching this Court. He has, therefore,
prayed for dismissal of all the writ petitions being not maintainable.
While referring to Rule 8 (13) of the Himachal Pradesh Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'H.P.
Water Rules') read with Section 12 (2) of the Water Act, the learned counsel for respondentÂBoard submits that the Member Secretary was
competent to issue the impugned Show Cause Notices on behalf of the Board.
At this stage, learned Advocate General appearing for respondentÂState submits that in such a situation when an industry is stated to have been
causing pollution to the environment/water bodies and pursuant thereto, the Board, exercising its powers under Water Act and Environment Protection
Act, is proceeding to shut down the petitioners Unit, the ultimate sufferer, in both the situations, will be the State, since the emission of the treated
effluent into the river will destroy the environment of the State and due to the shutting down of the petitionersÂUnit, it is the State who ultimately will
suffer loss of revenue and employment opportunities as the industries in the State, directly or indirectly, are helping the State in generating revenue as
well as employment opportunities.
He has, therefore, prayed that instead of passing some orders on merits of the cases, permission be granted to the State Government to make an
endeavour to make understand the parties to sit together in order to amicably resolve the dispute and the Authorities under the Water Act,
Environment Protection Act and H.P. Water Rules will work out the level of pollution caused by the petitioners, if any, and, accordingly, the steps to
prevent the same will be taken.
This Court has given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Advocate General as also by the learned counsel
representing the respective parties and are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of
these writ petitions, at this stage, with liberty to the Principal Secretary (Environment, Science & Technology) to the Government of Himachal
Pradesh and also the Authorities under the Water Act, to issue appropriate directions to the petitioners to prevent emission of the treated effluent
strictly in terms of the provisions of Law. In case, even after the efforts made by the State and the Board, the petitioners fail to prevent the emission
of treated effluent into the river, then it is for the State and Board to take appropriate action(s), in accordance with law.
We feel that the Show Cause Notices, dated 23rd June, 2020, impugned in all the writ petitions, may come in the way of the petitioners and the
Board to proceed further in case these are allowed to stand. Therefore, in the light of above submissions, more particularly, on the submissions made
by the learned Advocate General, we hold that the impugned Show Cause Notices, dated 23rd June, 2020 shall remain inoperative for the time being.
Before parting with, it would be appropriate to record herein that the water bodies, like streams, lakes, rivers, are the precious gift from the nature
to the mankind since time immemorial and it is our duty and responsibility to protect and preserve them. No industry can be allowed to pollute the
water bodies by discharging or emitting the treated effluents or pollutants into the water. All the industries should adhere to the rules and regulations
framed by the State/Central Governments with respect to environment protection.
Viewed thus, all the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners and respondentÂBoard to appear before the Principal
Secretary (Environment, Science & Technology) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, without awaiting any notice, on 30th July, 2020, who is
further directed to proceed in matter after hearing both the parties. All the miscellaneous applications/Caveat Petitions are disposed of accordingly.