Allowed

M/S B.D.V.K. Polymers v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021WRIC/25350/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition, holding that the impugned orders closing an industrial unit violated natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's reply. The objection regarding maintainability due to an alternative statutory appeal was rejected given the violation of natural justice, and both challenged orders were set aside.

What did the court decide?

Set-aside of orders dated 26.04.2019 and 21.09.2019 with liberty to pass order afresh after proper consideration.

M/S B.D.V.K. Polymers Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25350 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S B.D.V.K. Polymers Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Chandra Gupta,Manish Gupta

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 26.04.2019 so as to the order dated 21.09.2019 passed by the respondents. By the order dated 26.04.2019, the respondents pass an order to close the industrial unit finding violation of the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

¶7

It is stated that pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the respondents, reply was given by the petitioner on 26.03.2019. Ignoring the reply, the impugned order dated 26.04.2019 was passed with consequential order of recovery. The nonconsideration of the reply violates the basic principle of natural justice, thus, prayer is made to cause interference with the impugned order.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondents has raised objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in reference to Section 33 (B) (c) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. He submits that appeal lies against the impugned order but without availing the remedy aforesaid, present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

¶9

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents and scanned the material carefully. The perusal of the order dated 26.04.2019 does not show reference

¶10

of the reply submitted by the petitioner on 26.03.2019, pursuant to the notice. The impugned order does not deal with any of the issue taken by the petitioner in his reply may be in reference to the letter of consent having currency till December 2019. The respondents were under obligation to deal with the defence taken by the petitioner in his reply.

¶11

In absence of consideration of the reply, the impugned order remains in violation of principle of natural justice. The consequential order dated 21.09.2019 is based on the main order dated 26.04.2019. Since, we find violation of principle of natural justice, thus, cannot accept the objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition in the light of the availability of alternative remedy. The issue has now been well settled by Apex Court holding that mere availability of the remedy of appeal would not bar a writ petition, specially when it is in reference to the violation of principle of natural justice.

¶12

In the light of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents rather find reasons to cause interference to the order dated 26.04.2019 so as the order dated 21.09.2019, as such, both the orders are set-aside. It is, however, with liberty to the respondents to proceed further in the matter and pass order afresh but would be after proper consideration of the issue taken by the petitioner in his reply. The order afresh would be speaking one and without any bias.

¶13

Writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Shekhar

M/S B.D.V.K. Polymers v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S B.D.V.K. Polymers v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Chaturi Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Yogendra Kumar Gaur Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Director, Employee State Insurance Scheme and 2 Others Vs Shailesh Radhore

State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others Vs Km. Annamma P.P.

M/S Jai Shree Bala Ji Brick Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others