Disposed

Modella Hospitality Private Ltd. v. the Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC1 Jul 2019W.P.(C)/6940/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed petitions challenging orders closing banquet units for lack of Consent to Operate under pollution laws. Directed DPCC to process applications within four weeks, restrained authorities from coercive action provided petitioners undertake not to operate until consent is granted.

What did the court decide?

DPCC directed to process applications within four weeks; authorities restrained from coercive action pending petitioners' undertaking not to operate.

Modella Hospitality Private Ltd. Vs the Government… — Environment and Pollution | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:18.10.2024 16:10 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

with Ms Dacchita Shai and Ms Shivani Vij, Advocates. Mr Harpreet Singh Popli and Mr Mukul Girdhar, Advocates for R-1. Mr Sumeet Pushkama with Mr Kush Sharma and Mr Devanshu Lahiry, Advocates alongwith Mr Dinesh Jindal, Law Officer/R-2 (DPCC) WITH 11.

¶3

W.P.fQ 6961/2019 & CM Nos. 28925/2019 & 28926/2019 NEW KHALSA RESTAURANT THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SH PRITAM SE^GH Petitioner Through: Mr Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Ms Shikha Sapra and Mr Abhinav Jaing, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

THEGOVER	NMENTOFNO	TOFDELHI
& ANR			Respondents
	Through:	MrGautamNarayan,	ASC,GNCTD
		withMsDacchita	ShaiandMs
		ShivaniVij,Advocate	s.
		MrHarpreetSingh	PopliandMr
		MukulGirdhar,Advoc	atesforR-1.
		MrSumeetPushkam SharmaandMrDeva	awithMrKush nshuLahiryand
		MrPrateekRaiand	MrShailGhai,
		AdvocatesforR-2/	DPCCwithMr
		DineshJindal,La DPCC.	wOfficerfor

¶6

AND

¶7

¶8

W.P.(CI 6965/2019 & CM Nos. 28931/2019 & 28932/2019

¶9

M/S LA FORTUNA BANQUETS (A UNIT OF WARNER

¶10

HOSPITALITY) Petitioner Through: Mr Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Ms Shikha Sapra and Mr Abhinav Jaing, Advocates.

¶11

versus

¶12

■t 4

¶13

THE GOVERNMENT OF NOT AND ANR Respondents Through: Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC, GNCTD with Ms Dacchita Shai and Ms Shivani Vij, Advocates. Mr Harpreet Singh Popli and Mr Mukul Girdhar, Advocates for R-1. Mr Sumeet Pushkama with Mr Kush Sharma and Mr Devanshu Lahiry and Mr Prateek Rai and Mr Shail Ghai, Advocates for R-2/DPCC with Mr Dinesh Jindal, Law Officer for DPCC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER o/„ 01.07.2019

¶18

The petitioners have filed the present petitions, inter alia, impugning separate orders, all dated 18.06.2019, whereby the petitioners have been ealled upon to close the respective units being operated by the petitioners.

¶19

The petitioners are in the business of operating the banquet halls and/or restaurants in the area of Mayapuri, New Delhi. Respondent no.2, Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), has issued the impugned orders as, on inspection, it was found that the petitioners do not have the requisite 'Consent to Operate' their respective units as required under the Air

¶20

(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, ,981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 3. Whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C) 6950/2019 has yet not commenced e operation of its unit, the other petitioners state that they have been operating their respective units for a considerable period. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they had obtained the Consent to Establish and, thereafter, had applied for Consent to Operate under the relevant pollution laws, however, the same has not been granted till date. It IS claimed that the said permissions were to be applied for online. However the Computer Server of DPCC is not functioning and, therefore, the' petitioners had faced serious difficulties in transmitting their respective applications through the online mode.

¶21

It is in the aforesaid context that the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders.

¶22

At the outset, it is necessary to observe that there is no dispute that the petitioners are required to obtain the necessary approvals (Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate) under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It is also not in dispute that none of the petitioners have been granted the Consent to Operate their respective units. Thus, indisputably, the petitioners are operating their respective units in violation of the above mentioned Pollution Control Laws. In this view, no relief ean be granted to the petitioners and they cannot be permitted to operate their respective units. 7. It is also noted that by virtue of Section 25(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the consent would deemed

¶23

¶24

to have been granted unless refused within a period of four ntonths from the date of the application.

¶25

However, given the peeuliar eireumstances of this case, this Court oonstders tt apposite that DPCC be directed to process the application of the petittouers as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of four weeks from today. It is so directed.

¶26

Mr Mathur, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, undertakes on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners will not carry on any activity pertaining to their respective units till the pethioners obtain the necessary Consent to Operate. Subject to the petitioners filing undertakings by way of affidavits to this Court within a period of two working days to the aforesaid effect - that is, that they shall not operate their respective units till they have obtained the Consent to Operate - the respondents are restrained from taking any further coercive action.

¶27

¶28

The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All the pending applications are also disposed of.

¶29

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶30

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶31

JULY 01, 2019

¶32

Modella Hospitality Private Ltd. v. the Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Modella Hospitality Private Ltd. v. the Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

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

Col Sandeep Ahlawat Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence & Ors.

Shivangi Lal through Her Guardian/Father Mr. Apurb Lal Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

M/S Mayar Health Resorts Ltd. Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Recovery Officer & Anr.

Sunita Bharti Vs Commandent of Army Hospital (R&R) through Oic Shops

Tarun Sood Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Manoj Arora Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Bankim K. Kulshrestha Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India & Anr. Vs Ram Swarup & Ors.

Reetu Sharma Vs Deputy Director of Education District West

Neha Kedia Vs Anurag Tyagi

Mukesh Aggarwal Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S S & P Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. Vs National Highways and Infrastucture Development Corporation Ltd. (Nhidcl)

Baljit Singh Bedi Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Ramesh Chandra Kalra through Standing Counsel (Civil) Vs Gnct of Delhi and Anr.