.i- j-l \ $- {< 27 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(c) s478t20r0 SUBI-IASH CHAND ..... Petitioner Through \4r. P.S. Bindra, Advocate VETSUS DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ... Respondent Through Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Jindal, ALO CORAM: JUSTICE S. MI]RALIDHAR ORDER oh 13.08.2010 CM APPL No. 10786/2010 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. WP (Civil) 5478/2010 & CM APPL No. 10785/2010 3. Notice. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate accepts notice. 4.There are two points urged by Mr. Bindra, leamed counsel for the Petitioner. The first is that despite the direction in the order of this Courl dated 5'r' March 2010 requiring the Dethi Pollution Control Committee ('DPCC') to serve upon the Petitioner a show cause notice detailing the precise nature of the breach committed and enclosing a copy of the relevant inspection repoft, the inspection reports dated 29't' Ianuary 2010 and 20th April 2OI0 were not enclosed with, the Respondent issued notice dated 13th May 2010 to the Petitioner. The second grievance'is that the Petitioner is being asked to furnish a bank guarantec by the Respondent/DPCC, as a condition for being pennitted to resume t t W.P. (c) No.5478/2070 Page 7 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified I j, "f; I operations within the permissible limits in terms of the environmental noffns. It is submitted that there is no power under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 ('Air Act') or the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ('Water Act') permitting the DPCC to ask the Petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent states that as regards the first point urged, the order passed by the DPCC was in the presence of the Petitioner and others whose units have been directed to be closed on the ground that they were undertaking the activity of pickling which was not permitted in terms of the Master Plan for Delhi 2021('MPD 2021'). 6. As regards the second point it is submitted that although there is ng specific statutory provision permitting the DPCC to demand a bank guarantee, this is the regular practice being adopted since it has the desired deterrent effect. It is pointed out that out of four cases considered together by the DPCC, three have submitted bank guarantees and only the Petitioner has chosen to file the present petition. 7 .It appears to this Court that the real concern of the DPCC is to ehsure that the Petitioner does not undertake in future in his unit any activity that is impermissible in terms of the MPD 202I norms. Considering the fact that there is no specific power under the Air Act or Water Act that enables the DPCC to ask the Petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for violating the MPD 202I nonns, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to file an affidavit by way of undertaking in this Court that he w.P. (c) No.5478/2070 Page 2 of 3 ri ra v will hereafter not undertale an activity that is impermissible under the MPD-2021, parlicularly that of pickling, at the premises at B-41 Group (Backside) Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110052 and that in the event of DPCC finding that there is any violation of the said undertaking, it will apart from directing the immediate closure of the'Petitioner's unit, also file an appropriate petition in this Court for proceeding against the Petitioner for acting in breach of such undertaking. 8. In that view of the matter, the Petitioner is directed to file an affidavit of undertaking in the above terms in this Court within one week front today. A copy of the said affidavit will be served in advance to the learned counsel for the DPCC. Upon filing of such affidavit, the impugned closure order dated 5th August 20IO issued by the DPCC will stand withdraw, the DPCC will permit the Petitioner to resulne operation in the unit. The Petitioner shall be strictly bound by the undertaking. 9. The petition and the pending application are disposed of in the above terms. Order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties. HAR, J AUGUST 13,2010 rk a t {r, .J \-v S.MURALID W.P. (c) No.5478/2070 Page 3 of 3