Case: Goa State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Environmental Engineer Vs. M/S. Balaji Metals, Represented By Mr. Sanjiv Mathiyan

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Y.V. Nadkarni waives notice for the respondent. The matter is heard finally byrespondent is a partnership firm, registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. A consent to operate the industry in favour of theaccording to the learned Counsel for the respondent, has been renewed by the Goa State Pollution Control Board by its Order dated 28th May, 2009 under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act 1981 for short). According to the respondent, somewhere on July 31, 2009, inspection of the respondents unit was conducted by the officials of the Board. The said report allegedly shows gross violations of the conditions contained in the renewed consent order dated 28.5.2009, issued by the Pollution Control Board to the Unit i.e. respondent Company under the Act 1981. It is further contended by the respondent that the Pollution Control Board i.e. the petitioner in this petition, issued directions/order to the respondent to suspend the operations of the unit. The reason assigned by the petitioner Board is the violation of the conditions contained in the consent to operate order dated 28th May, 2009. The respondent was also directed to show cause as to why the consent to operate i.e. order dated May 28, 2009 should not be cancelled/revoked. Thereafter, the respondent, indisputably, filed an appeal against the Order of the Board dated 13th August, 2009 being Pollution Appeal No.2/09 before the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji Goa. Along with this appeal, an application seeking grant of ex parte stay of the directions/order dated 10th August, 2009 was also filed. The learned Administrative Tribunal, on August 13, 2009, after hearing the Counsel for the respondent Company, passed an order staying the operation of the directions/Order dated August 10, 2009. It is against this order of the learned Tribunal dated 13th August, 2009, the petitioner Board has filed the present petition. It appears that the petition was filed on 17th August, 2009 on account of intervening 2 holidays i.e. 15th August, Independence Day and the Sunday respectively, the matter was mentioned, circulation was granted and that is how today, we are hearing the petition.

Reasoning:
We are not entering into merits of the issue and recording any opinion. We are, at this stage, inclined to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dated 13.8.09, principally, for deciding issue on merits and/or by a reasoned order, by the Petitioner Board, which has called upon the respondent company to show cause. If the matter is simply remanded to the Administrative Tribunal, in our view, it would not be expedient and in the interest of justice qua the parties and the citizens who, in fact, are not parties to these proceedings, but whose existence and rights we cannot forget. In our view, therefore, the issue needs to be resolved by the competent Authority i.e. the Goa State Pollution Control Board, in view of the issuance of the show cause notice to theour view, the Tribunal, while passing the order on 13th August, 2009 could have given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner Board.The order impugned in this petition, we are inclined to quash and set aside. We are further inclined to remand the case to the competent authority of the petitioner Board for disposal of the show cause notice served to the respondent Company, in accordance with law. The Counsel appearing for the respondent Company, on instructions, makes a statement that the representative of the respondent shall remain present before the competent authority of the Board on 20th August, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. The respondent is permitted to file reply before the competent authority of the Board on 20th August, 2009. The competent authority of the Board shall, thereafter, hear the respondent and dispose of the show cause notice by a reasoned order. In case the order passed is adverse to the respondent, we are inclined to grant protection in favour of the respondent company for a period of one week from the date of service of such order to the respondent.