Remanded

M/S Craftpac Enterprises Private Limited v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2023WRIC/18503/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that general notices do not satisfy the requirement of an individual notice and opportunity of hearing before imposing a heavy penalty. The impugned order was treated as a notice, and the matter was remanded for fresh inquiry within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.04.2023 treated as a notice; petitioner to submit reply in two weeks; authority to pass fresh order in six weeks.

M/S Craftpac Enterprises Private Limited Vs… — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141537-DB

¶2

Court No. - 46

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18503 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Craftpac Enterprises Private Limited Respondent :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Gupta,Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rajesh Kumar Vidyarthi

¶5

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.N. Singh and Sri Rajesh Kumar Vidyarthi, learned counsels for the respondents.

¶7

Petitioner is running a bakery and is aggrieved by an order passed by the competent authority imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs for generating waste and for non-disposal of it, in accordance with the Rules of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. It is urged that neither petitioner has been given any notice and opportunity before passing such order nor the assertions contained in the notice are otherwise correct. Petitioner has also asserted that there is no violation on its part in complying with the provisions of Rules of 2016.

¶8

Contentions raised by the petitioner is strongly opposed by the counsel for the respondents, who submits that the orders impugned contain photographs which prima facie shows disobedience of the provisions of the Rules.

¶9

Be that as it may, it is not disputed by the respondents nor is it discernible from the language of the order impugned that any individual notice has been issued to the petitioner. General notices allegedly issued by the respondents would not subserve the interest of justice, particularly, when the respondents are proposing to impose heavy penalties upon the petitioner.

¶10

In the facts of the case, we, therefore, permit the petitioners to represent their grievance before the second respondent, annexing all materials in support of its case. The order impugned dated 10.04.2023 shall be treated as a notice to the petitioner and its reply would be submitted within two weeks from today. The second respondent would get the facts inquired and after considering the petitioner's reply, shall be at liberty to pass a fresh

¶11

order within a period of six weeks. The direction to deposit penalty shall remain subject to the fresh orders to be passed by the authority concerned in terms of the above directions.

¶12

For the reasons and discussions held above, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.7.2023 RA

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Craftpac Enterprises Private Limited v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Craftpac Enterprises Private Limited v. Union of India and Another

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

Gaurav Sharma @ Sonu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Uttam Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Bhardwaj and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt Poonam Srivastava and 45 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anshul Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others