AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sh. Mr. Ajay Shanker, Advocate for Applicant in M.A 08/2023 at length.
This M.A has been filed by Punjab National Bank through its authorized officer stating that bank provided financial assistance to proponent on 27.07.2012 sanctioning a total loan of Rs. 250 lakhs by creation of equitable mortgage of property No. 33 Block A3, Chanakya Place, New Delhi-110059. Now the bank for realization of dues has sold it to auction purchaser Ram Singh Fogat who has ensured that he will not carryout any illegal activity on premises. Therefore, bank has requested that premises in question be directed to be de-sealed.
Background facts are that O.A No. 13/2017 was filed by Chanakya Place Residents Welfare Association complaining that several factories/workshops/industries are located in residential colonies such as Chanakyapuri Phase-I, Phase-II and Sitapuri of West Delhi which are functioning without seeking any prior Environmental Clearance (hereinafter referred to as ‘EC’) or in violation of conditions prescribed in EC and request was made that such illegally operating units be directed to be closed.
Tribunal referred to its earlier order passed in N. S. Yadav & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of North Delhi Municipal Corporation in O.A. 435 of 2016 wherein also notice was taken of the earlier order dated 20.07.2018 passed in Original Application No. 56(THC)/2013, Satish Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. and it was observed that Pollution Control Boards and Committees should be manned by responsible persons who can perform their duties and if possible persons with judicial background may also be appointed. Tribunal also referred to its judgement dated 28.09.2018 passed in Chattar Singh Rachhoya Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors., Original Application No. 726/2017 that Chief Secretary of Delhi may call a meeting to find out as to who are the persons responsible for permitting such kind of illegal activities and shall take appropriate action. In N.S Yadav (Supra), Tribunal also directed to levy environmental compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each for causing damage to environment by persistent defaults and inaction towards violations of the rules and directions issued by the Tribunal.
O.A No. 13/2017 was disposed of with following directions:-
“(a) The units carrying out illegal activities and creating pollution, including unauthorized workshops,carrying out servicing, repairing, denting, painting, and junk dealing etc. in violation of law may be stopped forthwith. Report of action taken may be submitted before this Tribunal within one month.
(b) Respondents are held liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. Fifty Thousand each for damage to the environment by their persistent defaults and inaction towards violations of the rules and directions issued by the Tribunal. This amount should be recovered from the heads of the said respondents personally to be deposited with the CPCB within one month.
(c) The Chief Secretary, Delhi may call a meeting of the concerned authorities and direct an action plan to be prepared and implemented by a team comprising the DCP of the area, SDM and the senior officer of DPCC. The said team must also conduct a public hearing on the spot atleast once in every week.
(d) The Chief Secretary may also indicate persons accountable for such repeated default and failures and take appropriate action under CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965 and submit action taken report to the Tribunal.”
Since directions were issued that units carrying out illegal activities and creating pollution running unauthorizedly should be closed down, it appears that pursuant to the said order, action was taken and premises in question was found running commercial/industrial activity in residential area and it was sealed.
It is not the case of bank that it ever verified, before raising financial assistance to proponent that it was not undertaking any activity in the premises in question which was not permissible in law. In fact, the bank without making any proper enquiry into this aspect as to whether the activity being carried out by proponent, was permissible activity in the area and premises in which the same was carried out, advanced loan and therefore, in fact provided finance to the person who was carrying out commercial/industrial activities in residential premises which was not permissible in law. Therefore, bank encouraged and helped while providing financial assistance to a person to continued to commit breach of law by undertaking industrial activity in a premises which was not permissible in such premises.
Hence, per se, it is also on abettor of a crime in question, responsible for continuance of illegal activities in premises in question. In fact, the Bank also ought to have been proceeded by concerned authority for such illegal activity.
Be that as it may, fact remains that activities in question was not permissible in premises in question and therefore, the premises was rightly sealed. That being so, no question arises for us to pass any order of de-sealing at the request of bank who is guilty of providing financial assistance for carrying out illegal activity in a residential premises which was not permissible in law.
M.A. No. 08/2023 is accordingly rejected