Quashed

M/S. Rayban Foods Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2019WRIC/30481/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order passed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board, holding it violated natural justice as the petitioner was not supplied with a report relied upon and denied an opportunity to file objections or meet it.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with direction that the petitioner submit reply/objection to the report within two weeks, after which respondent shall proceed to hear the matter and decide within fou

M/S. Rayban Foods Private Limited Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30481 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S. Rayban Foods Private Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Sagar Singh,Shri Anurag Khanna (Sr. Advt.)

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Nath Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, Dr. H.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1.

¶7

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Chairman, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow dated 3rd August, 2019 basically on the ground that two reports were obtained on 23rd July, 2019 and 31st July, 2019 after final hearing was concluded on 15th July, 2019. However, it is admitted to the petitioner that as far as report dated 23rd July, 2019 is concerned, copy thereof was supplied to him and he had filed objection on 25th July, 2019 but inspite of submission of objection dated 25th July, 2019, respondent did not give any opportunity and proceeded to pass final order considering yet another report dated 31st July, 2019 which was never supplied to the petitioner.

¶8

Since, it has been pleaded that reports dated 23.07.2019 and 31st July, 2019 were obtained on the back of the petitioner but there was no specific averment regarding any further date of hearing being fixed by respondent after 15th July, 2019 so the petitioner on the last date prayed for time to file supplementary affidavit in the above regard. We had also directed to Dr. Tripathi, to apprise the Court about factual position as to whether report dated 31st July, 2019 relied upon in the order impugned was every supplied to the petitioner or not.

¶9

Today supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner which is taken on record.

¶10

In the supplementary affidavit specific averment has been come to be made in paragraph 2 that copy of the report dated 31st July, 2019 which has been relied upon under the order impugned was never supplied to the petitioner. It has been further submitted that after 15th July, 2019, no further date was fixed in the matter and, therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to put up his defence even in respect of report dated 23rd July, 2019 as he could not counter the stand taken in the report, inasmuch as, his objection dated 25th July, 2019 has not been considered.

¶11

Dr. Tripathi, has obtained instructions from the respondents which are also taken on record. In the instructions, it has been clearly stated that report dated 31st July, 2019 was never supplied to the petitioner.

¶12

In such above view of the matter, since order that has been passed and impugned in the present case adversely affects rights and interest of the petitioner, it cannot be sustained for non compliance of principles of natural justice for non supply of the document that have been relied upon and petitioner had no opportunity to meet the reports and no further date was fixed in the matter for hearing.

¶13

On above short question, therefore, the order impugned dated 3rd August, 2019 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.

¶14

Copy of the report dated 31st July, 2019 and 23rd July, 2019 have been handed over by Dr. H.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the court itself.

¶15

In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of with direction that petitioner shall submit his reply/objection to the report within a period of two weeks from today and after receiving the reply from the petitioner respondent shall proceed to hear the matter and finally decide the same within further period of four weeks. Needless to say that opportunity of hearing will also be afforded to the petitioner by fixing date before passing final order.

¶16

Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Sanjeev

¶17

(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)

M/S. Rayban Foods Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Rayban Foods Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeshwar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limitedand Another

Vishwanath Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh Partner Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ncc Limited Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others