The Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition. It set aside an order closing a sugar factory passed without a hearing and directed the authority to decide after affording an opportunity of hearing.
Set aside impugned closure order; directed Competent Authority to decide after hearing within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
sat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8597 OF 2021
Shree Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Maryadit, Solapur
...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Respondents
Ms.Shriram Kulkarni with Rupesh Bobade, Shradda Sakpal i/b. Bhushan
Walimbe for Petitioner.
Mr.Sharmila Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Mr.R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for State.
CORAM : A.A. SAYED & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATED : 7 DECEMBER 2021
P.C. :
.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has produced a copy of the
order dated 23 November 2021 in Writ Petition No.7877 of 2021 of the 1st
Court. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said order read as follows :
“6.The contention of violation of principles of natural
justice, prima facie, does not appear to be without any
substance. The closure order does not record that copy
of the complaint of the “VIP” was served on the
petitioner. Such order also does not reveal consideration
of the pointwise reply submitted by the petitioner. In
view thereof, entertainment of the writ petition would
not be contrary to any decision of the Supreme Court.
Also, bearing in mind the limited prayer of Dr. Sathe, we
dispose of this writ petition with a direction upon the
respondent no. 3 to take an appropriate decision on the
representation dated 23rd September 2021 in accordance
with law upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner’s authorized representative, within a period of
Digitally signed by SANSKRUTI SANSKRUTI A THAKUR A THAKUR Date: 2021.12.09 17:48:13 +0530
1 / 3
sat
6 (six) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Prior to taking a decision on the petitioner’s
representation dated 23rd September 2021, it shall be
open to the respondent no.3 to conduct such surprise
inspection/visit at the petitioner’s unit to ascertain
whether the deficiencies pointed out in the order dated
15th September 2021 stand removed or not. Should the
petitioner be found to have complied with all the
statutory requirements and removed the deficiencies, the
closure order may be revoked with such conditions that
may be imposed by the respondent no.3. If, upon
inspection and hearing the petitioner, the respondent
no.3 is of the view that the closure order should be
continued, he shall pass a reasoned order and intimate
the same to the petitioner. All contentions are left open
2.By the impugned order dated 29 November 2021, the
Petitioner has been directed to close its karkhana (sugar factory). It is not
in dispute that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts in the
aforementioned case. In the present case also, the Petitioner has not been
granted a hearing prior to passing of the impugned order dated 29
November 2021 (page 111 of the Petition) pursuant to the Show Cause
Notice dated 2 July 2021 (page 98 of the Petition).
3.In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated
29 November 2021 with a direction to the Competent Authority of
Respondent No.3 to take an appropriate decision, after considering the
Reply of the Petitioner and affording an opportunity of hearing to the
Petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the copy of
this order.
4.Inasmuch it is pointed out that as the impugned order is inter
alia based on grounds which are not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice,
2 / 3
sat
it will be open for Respondent No.3 to issue an additional Show Cause
Notice. If such additional Show Cause Notice is issued, the Petitioner may
reply to the same. In such event, both the Show Cause Notices shall be
decided simultaneously.
5.It is expected of the State Expert Appraisal Committee
(SEAC)/State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to take a
decision on the proposal of the Petitioner for environment clearance,
expeditiously.
6. The Petition to stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
7. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
3 / 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the closure order passed without hearing violates principles of natural justice.
Whether the impugned order relies on grounds not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice.
Shree Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
The State of Maharashtra
A.A. Sayed
Abhay Ahuja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court