Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On Tuesday the Bombay High Court stayed 62 show cause notices stating the lack of prima facie.
The show-cause notices all dated May 18, 2020, were issued to textile manufacturers by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board for refusing to apply for consent to operate as per the provisions of Water(Prevention and Control for Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
The Division Bench that comprised of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Riyaz Chagla stated that the notices were issued in haste and without jurisdiction.
Advocate Manoj Harit who appeared for the petitioner stated that the notices that were issued by the MPCB were illegal, arbitrary, and highly oppressive. Adv. Manoj asserted that there was no significant ground or bases for the respondents to withhold consent to operate.
It was also stated that the show cause was issued by only providing the petitioner with 15 days time limit to reply. Considering the current situation across the globe due to the Pandemic such a short time limit to respond sheds light on the arbitrary and unfair nature of this action.
The pollution control board had directed M/s. Reliable Sizing Works to submit an adequacy report of the pollution control system from NEERI / IIT, Mumbai, and also instructed them to submit necessary permission (NOC) issued by the City Engineer of the Municipal Corporation with a recommendation to operate the industry in the location mentioned.
The Bench stated that:
It is not the case of the Board that petitioners have not complied with the conditions under section 25(4) of the Water Act and section 21(5) of the Act and section 21(5) of the Air Act. The power to direct closure or regulate operation of an industry under section 33A of the Water Act and section 31A of the Air Act are subject to provisions of the respective Acts."
Though these two provisions start with a nonobstante clause, the same is vis-a-vis any other law but subject to the provision of the two Acts. other words, section 33A of the Water Act and section 31A of the Air Act are governed by the provisions of the respective two Acts. It is not an unguided power to be exercised dehors the provisions of the two Acts."
Finally granting the stay the Court stated:
"That being the position, a prima facie view can be taken that the impugned show cause notices have been issued without jurisdiction and that too hastily”
86540
103860
630
114
59824