* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 20 + W.P.(C) 1077/2010 & CM APPL 2277/2010 21 SUBHASH CHAND ..... Petitioner versus Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra with Mr. Mike Desai, Advocate DELI-IT POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate along with Mr. Dinesh Jindal, ALO, DPCC + W.P.(C) 1078/2010 & CM APPL 2279/2010 22 SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ..... Petitioner versus Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra with Mr. Mike Desai, Advocate DELID POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate along with Mr. Dinesh Jindal, ALO, DPCC + W.P.(C) 1121/2010 & CM APPL 2348/2010 23 BISW ANATH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra with Mr. Mike Desai, Advocate versus DELI-IT POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate along with Mr. Dinesh Jindal, ALO, DPCC + W.P.(C) 1122/2010 & CM APPL 2350/2010 DEEP AK SACHDEV A Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra with Mr. Mike Desai; Advocate WP {C) Nos. 1077, 1078, 1121,1122,1123, 1124/2010 ..... Petitioner Page 1 of4 ,\ 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 ....--' _; 24 versus DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate along with Mr. Dinesh Jindal, ALO, DPCC + W.F-.(C) 1123/2010 & CM APPL 2352/2010 v . 25 ISH KUMAR versus ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra with Mr. Mike Desai, Advocate DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate along with Mr. Dinesh Jindal, ALO, DPCC And + W.P.(C) 1124/2010 & CM APPL 2354/2010 % SHY AMLAL BANSAL ..... Petitioner versus Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra with Mr. Mike Desai, Advocate DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate along with Mr. Dinesh Jindal, ALO, DPCC CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 05.03.2010 1. The original files produced by learned counsel for the Delhi Pollution Control Committee ('DPCC') have been perused. 2. The admitted position is that no show cause notice has been issued by the DPCC to any of the Petitioners, prior to passing the impugned orders, on the WP (C) Nos. 1077, 1078, 1121,1122,1123, 1124/2010 Pagel of4 erroneous understanding that presence of each of the Petitioners during the surprise inspection of their units was sufficient to put them on notice about the alleged breaches. 3. On this short ground, the impugned orders are hereby set aside, subject however, to the following directions: (a) The DPCC will, within a period of one week from today, serve upon each of the Petitioners or their respective learned counsel who appears in these cases, a show cause notice detailing the precise nature of the breach committed by each of them and enclosing a copy of the relevant inspection report. (b) Each of the Petitioners will, within a period of ten days thereafter; file their replies to the show cause notice. No further time will be granted to them for this purpose. (c) Each of the Petitioners, or their counsel, will be given a hearing on a date which will be communicated by the DPCC to each of them or their counsel seven days in advance. (d) The DPCC will pass a reasoned order within a period of ten days of the hearing in each of the cases of the Petitioners and inform the Petitioners or their counsel in writing of such decision within a further period of one week thereafter. 4. The above directions are further subject to each of the Petitioners filing WP (C) Nos. 1077, 1078, 1121,1122,1123, 1124/2010 Page3of4 within a week an undertaking by way of an affidavit in this court that till such time orders are passed by the DPCC, they shall not carry out any activity in the premises under their occupation. If the Petitioners seek to carry out any permissible activity, other than pickling, they will apply to the DPCC which shall consider such request in accordance with law. If still aggrieved by the orders passed by the DPCC in accordance with the above directions, it will be open to the Petitioners to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law. 5. With the above directions, the petitions and the pending applications are disposed of. 6. Order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties. MARCH 05, 2010 rk WP {C) Nos. 1077, 1078, 1121,1122,1123, 1124/2010 S. MURALIDHAR, J. Page 4 of4