Remanded

M/S Aikya Projects v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Board and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2021WRIC/1977/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition seeking quashing of a demand notice for environment compensation. The order was set aside because it was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, remitting the matter for reconsideration. The court held that the petitioner's rights must be protected before such demands are finalized.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14.07.2020 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Authority concern for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

M/S Aikya Projects Vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1977 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Aikya Projects Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh Pollution Board And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Hari Nath Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

Sri Jalaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶7

Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3.

¶8

Petitioner by way of present petition seeks following relief:

¶9

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorary for quashing the demand notice dated 14.07.2020 having reference no.1678/NGT-154/Mahoba/20 (contained as Annexure no.1) by which the opposite party no.2 has demanded Rs.34,12,500/ (Thirty Four Lakh Twelve Thousand Five Hundred) as environment compensation.

¶10

ii. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶11

Quashment of order dated 14.07.2020 has been sought on the sole ground that order has been passed without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order impugned emanates from the alleged notice dated 09.01.2020 which is brought on record at page 72 of the present compilation. The notice though is addressed to the present petitioner, however the decision taken is against M/s Shri Balaji Granite (presently known as Siddhivinayak Granite Industries), Gungara Road, Ganj, Karbai, District Mahoba. The same is reproduced for ready reference:

¶12

“ mijksDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, l{ke vf/kdkjh¼lnL; lfpo] m0iz0 iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ] y[kuÅ½ ds fnukad 08-1-2020 ds vuqeksnukFkZ ,oa funsZ’kkuqlkj eSllZ Jh ckykth xzsukbV ¼orZeku uke flf}fouk;d xzsukbV b.MLVªht½] xqxkSjk jksM] xat] dcjbZ tuin& egksck ds fo:} fuEukuqlkj dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tkrk gS%&

¶13

1- ;g fd D;ksa u eSllZ Jh ckykth xzsukbV¼orZeku uke flf}fouk;d xzsukbV b.MLVªht½]xqxkSjk jksM] xat] dcjbZ tuin& egksck ds fo:} fnukad 19-01-2018 ls fnukad 20-07-2019 rd vFkkZr 546 fnol ds mYya?ku gsrq Ik;kZoj.kh; {kfriwfrZ :i;s 34]12]500-00@& ¼:0 pkSarhl yk[k ckjg gtkj ikap lkS ek=½ dh Ik;kZoj.kh; {kfriwfrZ vf/kjksfir dj nh tk;sA

¶14

mijksDr ds laca/k esa Li"Vhdj.k bl i= izkfIr ds 15 fnu ds vUnj {ks=h; dk;kZy;] m0iz0 iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ ckank ,oa cksMZ eq[;ky;] y[kuÅ dks izsf"kr djsa] vU;Fkk dh fLFkfr esa mijksDrkuqlkj fnukad 19-01-2018 ls fnukad 20-07-2019 rd vFkkZr 546 fnol ds mYya?ku gsrq Ik;kZoj.kh; {kfriwfrZ Lo;a 34]12]500-00@& ¼:0 pkSarhl yk[k ckjg gtkj ikap lkS ek=½ vf/ kjksfir dj nh tk;sxhA ftldk lEiw.kZ mRrjnkf;Ro lafnHkZr m|ksx Lokeh ,oa lapkyu ds izfr mRrjnk;h O;fDr;ksa dk gksxkA^^

¶15

¶16

It is contended that since a decision was taken by the Authority concern to effect recovery against M/s Balaji Granite on the basis of a decision by the National Green Tribunal, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing nor any decision has been taken earlier to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner in furtherance to order dated 03.08.2018 passed by National Green Tribunal in O.A. No.593/ 2017. It is accordingly urged that the impugned order having been passed on the basis of a decision taken for recovery of amount from M/s Shre Balaji Granite is not tenable in the eyes of law.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 fairly submits that a similar issue came up for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court forming subject matter in Writ C No.141 of 2021, wherein while taking note of the respective facts that the petitioner was not heard and a non-speaking order was passed the order similar to impugned herein present petition was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Authority concern for fresh consideration.

¶18

¶19

Taking into consideration the submission put-forth on behalf of the petitioner and the fact adverted above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 14.07.2020 and remit the matter to the Authority concern for reconsideration of the representation preferred by the petitioner and pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Let a decision be taken expeditiously; however not later than 30 days’ from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner is expected to cooperate in the hearing of the matter.

¶20

Petition is disposed of finally in above terms.

¶21

No costs.

¶22

Order Date :- 27.1.2021 N Tiwari

¶23

(Jayant Banerji,J.) (Sanjay Yadav,J.)

¶24

M/S Aikya Projects v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Board and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aikya Projects v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Board and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Datt Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shri Chandra Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Shahabuddin and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

District and Sessions Judge Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Mohd. Parvej Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammad Shaban Vs Union of India and 6 Others