Disposed

Hindalco Industries Ltd. through Its Authorised Signatory v. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2018WP/13546/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court characterized an impugned order directing mining suspension and utility disconnection as a show cause notice. The petitioner was granted a personal hearing, and implementation of any adverse final order was stayed for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order treated as show cause notice; directions withdrawn; personal hearing granted; stay on adverse final order for 2 weeks.

Hindalco Industries Ltd. through Its Authorised… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2018)

1/3

904-wp-13546-18.doc

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 13546 OF 2018

¶6

Hindalco Industries Limited .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Darius Khambatta, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Ashish Prasad a/w Ms. Mukta Datta a/w Ms. A. A. Mujawar I/by Economic Laws Practice for petitioner.

¶11

Mr. J. P. Jagtap for respondent no.1.

¶12

Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for State.

¶13

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, CJ. & M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶14

DECEMBER 11, 2018.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, on

¶18

instructions, submits that Chairman of respondent no.1 would hear the

¶19

petitioner and thereafter take appropriate decision on merits. The

¶20

learned Senior Counsel Mr. Khambatta, appearing for the petitioner,

¶21

2/3

¶22

904-wp-13546-18.doc submits that it would be appropriate if the impugned order dated 27/11/2018 itself is treated as show cause notice. It would be further appropriate to cancel /withdraw the directions contained in the impugned order so that the parties could approach the concerned authority afresh.

¶23

We have perused the impugned order dated 27/11/2018. Under the impugned order the respondent no.1 had issued directions to the petitioner to stop the mining activities forthwith and had restrained the petitioner from lifting or transporting any of the dumped material. Further directions were issued to disconnect the water/electricity supply to the petitioner’s unit.

¶24

In the facts of the case and considering the issue raised, we pass follow order :

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

(a) The impugned order dated 27/11/2018 shall be treated as show cause notice. The directions contained in the impugned order shall stand

withdrawn

3/3

904-wp-13546-18.doc

(b) The petitioner shall be granted an opportunity to

¶31

file its reply to the show cause notice.

¶32

¶33

(d) After hearing the parties, respondent no.1 would be entitled to pass final order on its own merits.

¶34

(e) In case the final order is adverse to the petitioner, the same shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the said order by the petitioner.

¶35

All contentions are kept open. It is clarified that we have

¶36

not expressed any opinion on the issues raised by the petitioner herein.

¶37

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶38

M. S. KARNIK, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Hindalco Industries Ltd. through Its Authorised Signatory v. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindalco Industries Ltd. through Its Authorised Signatory v. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baban Bambhaji Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dhanesh Champalal Gandhi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Jalindar Haribhau Shivale and Ors. Vs the Additional Collector/Deputy Director of Resettlement Land and Ors.

Hindalco Industries Ltd. through Its Authorised Signatory Vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Ors.

M/S. Venus Lodge and M/S. Jeevan Enterprises through Their Partner Vs the Thane Municipal Corporation through Their Commissioner and Ors.

Bharatesh Construction Co. Thru Paoh Mr. Prakash B Kulkarni Vs Mah. Pollution Control Board and Ors.