Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Devi Enterprises, represented by its proprietrix Smt. Sukadi Devi, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash a closure order dated 03.07.2013 passed by the first respondent, the Environmental Officer of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB). The impugned order was the culmination of a complaint received on 05.02.2013 regarding noise pollution from an industry described as M/s. Ambe Polymers (New Ownership operating in the name of M/s. Devi Enterprises), which was engaged in the manufacture of injection moulded components without obtaining consent from the KSPCB. After receipt of the complaint, an inspection was carried out on 14.02.2013, but the unit was not working as it had given a holiday to workers. A show-cause notice was issued on 23.02.2013, which was neither replied nor complied with. Another complaint dated 12.03.2013 was received on 15.03.2013, and the officer again inspected the unit. The closure order was then passed on 03.07.2013. The petitioner contended that the closure order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice. The court observed that the impugned order did not record any reply or compliance by the petitioner, nor did it indicate that any opportunity of hearing was given before the drastic step of closure was taken. The court held that the closure order was unsustainable and quashed it, granting liberty to the KSPCB to proceed afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Closure Order - Violation of Natural Justice - The impugned closure order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice. The Board had issued a show-cause notice but did not consider the petitioner's reply or provide a hearing before ordering closure. Held that the closure order is unsustainable and quashed, with liberty to the Board to proceed afresh after giving due opportunity. (Paras 1-3) B) Environmental Law - Consent to Operate - Show-Cause Notice - The petitioner was operating without consent from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. The Board issued a show-cause notice on 23.02.2013 which was not replied or complied with. However, the closure order was passed without further notice or hearing. Held that the closure order is set aside, and the Board may take fresh action after providing an opportunity of hearing. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the closure order dated 03.07.2013 passed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned closure order dated 03.07.2013 (Annexure-D) is quashed. The respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- opportunity of hearing
- closure order
- pollution control
- consent to operate
- show-cause notice
- compliance
- environmental law
