1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3296 OF 2011 (M/s. Shivam Nitrate thr. Its Director vs. The State of Maharashtra) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JULY 26, 2011. Heard Shri Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Joshi, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Shri Sanyal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The respective counsel have urged various grounds either to assail the order or to defend it. However, one of the contentions is, before taking any action under Section 33-A and Section 31-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, respectively, principles of natural justice must be complied with. Shri Manohar, learned counsel contends that though there is a notification produced along with reply mentioning delegation of power to respective Regional Officer but that delegation itself requires compliance with principles of natural justice 2 and an opportunity to erring unit to make amends. He contends that this opportunity has not been given to the petitioner and his unit has been closed since 09.07.2011. Shri Sanyal, learned counsel is relying upon the reply affidavit to point out the serious lapse noticed. According to him, the manufacturing process itself has been changed and the residue generated is allowed to percolate in soil which has increased PH of water. There is also cadmium noted in that residue. He, therefore, states that in such a situation a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and he sought time of two weeks to reply to it. He points out that Board has received complaints from villagers about death of their cattle after drinking water in the vicinity. Hence, the Board has no option but to immediately discontinue hazardous operation going on in the unit. We are not recording any finding on any of these contentions. We find that the petitioner has not been heard in the matter. Hence, we direct the petitioner to submit appropriate reply to the show cause notice received by it within a period of three days from today and thereafter Respondent No. 2 shall proceed to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in the matter as early as possible and in any case by 8th August 2011. Till then, status 3 quo as on today shall continue. Liberty to the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the subsequent orders passed by Respondent No. 2, to approach competent Court in the matter. With these directions and observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.