AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Appeal has been preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 dated 03.02.2022, setting aside of the order passed by the Haryana State PCB dated 1.12.2020 directing closure of the mineral grinding powder unit of the respondent and also revoking the CTO.
According to the State PCB, the unit was required to provide plantation on 33% of the land as per the consent conditions but the said condition was not followed. The unit also dumped waste unscientifically. Air pollution control machine (APCM) installed was not adequate to control air pollution and thus, fugitive dust was resulting in air pollution.
On appeal by the unit, the Appellate Authority held that the Board should have got re-inspection/re-sampling done and set aside the order of the State PCB is as follows: -
“6. I have gone through the memo of appeal, case file and the averments made by both the parties. In fact, the Board should have considered the request of the appellant unit as per the Boards’ policy for re-inspection/re-sampling and get it analysed from the Lab before passing closure order. It is evident that Board has failed to follow its own policy before passing the closure order.
In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant unit is allowed and orders dated 01.12.2020 is set aside. The Board is directed to re-inspect the unit and collect sample afresh and get the sample analyzed from the authorized lab and only inspection report/analysed report conducted in compliance of this order shall be considered by the Board while passing afresh order and no action on the basis of earlier inspection report shall be taken by the Board.”
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the earlier policy of re-sampling is no longer in force. Moreover, serious violations of consent conditions are undisputed as plantation required has not been done and air pollution is clearly established which were also reported to the Tribunal in O.A No. 599/2019, Bishamber Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. Accepting the same, this Tribunal directed remedial action which fact has been ignored by the Appellate Authority.
Vide order dated 31.05.2022 considering the above, we issued notice to the respondent and granted interim stay of impugned order. Accordingly, the respondent has filed reply to the effect that as per circular issued by the State PCB on 24.02.2016, the State PCB had to undertake inspection on such inspection being sought by the PP. In the present case, after the closure order, the PP made request for further inspection which has not been done and, thus, the Appellate Authority was justified in quashing the order of closure.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Stand of the appellant is that closure order was passed in the light of violations which were also noticed by this Tribunal vide order dated 11.02.2020 in O.A No. 599/2019, supra. The State PCB passed closure order dated 01.12.2020 which did not suffer from any infirmity. There was no violation of natural justice in the process.
Stand of the PP is that it is now compliant and even if closure order dated 01.12.2020 is maintained, compliance status thereafter needs to be looked into.
In view of above, while allowing this appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 3.2.2022 and restoring the order of closure dated 1.12.2020 passed by the appellant, we direct the appellant to consider the stand of the PP that it is now compliant and that closure order needs to be revoked. The State PCB may verify compliance and take appropriate decision as per law preferably within one month.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.