Disposed

Ambey Int Udyog v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Aug 2022CW/12413/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan disposed of a writ petition concerning an environmental compensation order imposed by the State Pollution Control Board without a hearing. The court treated the order as a notice, directed the Board to pass a fresh order within eight weeks, stayed coercive action, and dismissed a related stay petition.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 08.03.2022 treated as notice; fresh order by State Pollution Control Board within eight weeks; no coercive action allowed.

Ambey Int Udyog Vs the State of Rajasthan — Environment and Pollution | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12413/2022

¶3

Ambey Int Udyog, Through Its Proprietor Shri Surendra Takhar S/o Shri Sohan Lal Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 23, Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Member Secretary, The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Headquarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶7

The Regional Office, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Plot No. 50, Sector 9/1, Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶8

The Municipal Board, Srivijaynanagar, Through Its Executive Officer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

27/08/2022

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6847/2022 Vipin Kumar Chugh vs. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board & Anr. decided on 03.08.2022.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board vide order dated 08.03.2022 has imposed an environmental compensation to the

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-12413/2022]

¶19

tune of Rs.24,25,000/- without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-company.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide communication dated 06.07.2022, the respondents have communicated that on account of non-deposition of the amount in pursuance of the order dated 08.03.2022, the action to close the units of the petitioner may be ordered.

¶21

It is also submitted that the order dated 08.03.2022 is not a speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company while placing reliance on an order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Appeal No.22/2022 has submitted that the National Green Tribunal has set aside the demand raised by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board in the matter some of the brick kilen owners and the case of the petitioner-company is similar to that matter. It is further submitted that the National Green Tribunal has observed that as the due process of law has not been followed in passing the impugned order, the impugned order be treated as notice and the State Pollution Control Board shall pass a fresh order considering the stand of the appellant of that case, including any further updated reply.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner- company has submitted that in view of the above, this writ petition may also be disposed of with a direction to the State Pollution Control Board to pass a fresh order after considering the stand/reply of the petitionercompany.

¶23

In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of. The order dated 08.03.2022 shall be treated as notice to the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company may file its reply to

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-12413/2022]

¶26

the said notice and the State Pollution Control Board shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law and, thereafter, pass a fresh order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶27

It is made clear that till the competent authority decides the case of the petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶28

Stay petition is also disposed of.

¶29

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶30

12-Sanjay/-

Ambey Int Udyog v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambey Int Udyog v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhoop Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Teja Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Anita Rathore Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajiv Joshi Vs the Insurance Lokpal (Ombudsman-Rajasthan)

Smt. Suman Rathore Vs Smt. Indu Rathore