Dismissed

M/s. Kreative Organics Ltd., v. Central Pollution Control Board

Telangana HC25 Aug 2015WP/27001/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioners had an effective statutory remedy of appeal under Section 28 of the Water Act regarding monitoring directions under Sections 25 and 26. The writ petition challenging these directions as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(b) was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to pursue the remedy of appeal under the Water Act.

M/s. Kreative Organics Ltd., Vs Central… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 27001 OF 2015

¶5

25-08-2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Kreative Organics Ltd., (Formerly M/s. SVS Chemicals), D-123, Phase – III, IDA, Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District, rep., by its Managing Director Dr. S. Krishnamohan and others

¶8

… Petitioners

¶9

And

¶10

Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, New Delhi – 110 032, rep., by its Secretary and others

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶13

WRIT PETITION No. 27001 OF 2015

¶14

PC: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V. Bhatt)

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1, Sri B.Narayna Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.2 and Sri P. Shiv Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3.

¶16

The petitioners pray for the following relief:

¶17

“……..t o grant an order, direction or a writ, more so in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned directions issued by the 1^st respondent in proceedings No.B-29016704/06/PCI-1/5401, dated 05-02-2014 under Section 18(1) (b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution).Act, 1974 to all the State Pollution Boards, including the 3rd respondent herein, the subsequent directions dated 02-03-2015 bearing No. B-29016/04/06/PCI-i/7176 and 7216 and the further directions dated 29-5-2015 bearing No. B-29016/04/06/PCI-1/ and the consequential directions issued by the 3rd respondent under notice bearing Lr.No. /CMPT/PCB/ROR-II/2015-1416, dated 24.04.2015 issued to petitioner No. 1, directions bearing Lr.No.3001/PCB/R0I/SRD/MDK/2014-1908, dated 10.12.2014 issued to petitioner No. 2, directions bearing Lr.No.3001/PCB/ROI/SRD/MDK/ 2015-2112, dated 16.03.2015 issued to petitioner No. 3, directions bearing Lr.No. /CMPT/PCB/ROR-II/2015-1416 dated 24.04.2015 issued to petitioner No. 4, directions bearing Lr.No. CMPT/PCB/ROR-II/2015-1416 dated 24.04.2015 issued to petitioner No. 5, notice bearing Lr.No. /PCB/RO-II/RCP/MDK/ 2015 dated 05.05.2015 issued to petitioner No. 6, directions bearing Lr.No.2013/PCB/RO-I/SRD/MDK/2015 dated 20.03.2015 issued to petitioner No. 7, directions bearing Lr.No. /CMPT/PCB/RORII/CFE/2014-862 dated 26.11.2014 issued to petitioner No. 8, directions bearing Lr.No.3001/PCB/RO-I/SRD-MDK/2015-2112, dated 16.03.2015 issued to petitioner No. 9, directions bearing Lr.No.3001/PCB/RO-I/SRD/MDK/2015-2112 dated 16.03.2015 and directions bearing Lr.No.2013/PCB/RO-I/SRD/MDK/2015 dated 20.03.2015 issued to petitioner No. 10, directions bearing Lr.No.

¶18

82/PCB/RO-II/RCP-MDK/2015-6446 dated 19.03.2015 issued to petitioner No. 11, directions bearing Lr.No.105/PCB/RO-II/RCPMDK/2015-6417 dated 16.03.2015 issued to petitioner No. 12, directions bearing Lr.No. 72001/PCB/RO-NLG/2015-3882 dated 05.12.2014 issued to petitioner No. 13, directions bearing Lr.No. /CMPT/PCB/ROR-II/2015-1416 dated 24.04.2015 issued to petitioner No. 14, directions bearing Lr.No. /CMPT/PCB/ROR-II/2015-1416, dated 24.04.2015 issued to petitioner No. 15, directions bearing Lr.No. /CMPT/PCB/R0R-II/CFE/2014-862 dated 26.11.2014 issued to petitioner No. 16, show cause notice Lr.No. 527/PCB/RO-I /SRD/2015-2294 dated 07.05.2015 and Order No.MDK-184/TSPCB/UII/TF/2014-895 dated 09.02.2015 issued to petitioner No. 17, directions bearing Lr.No.105/PCB/RO-II/RCP/MDK/2015-6417 dated 16.03.2015 and Notice bearing Lr.No. /PCB/RO-II/RCP/MDK/20156670 dated 09.06.2015 issued to petitioner No. 18, directions bearing Lr.No. 72001/PCB/RO-NLG/2015-593 dated 25.06.2015 issued to petitioner No. 19, directions bearing Lr.No. 72001/PCB/RO-NLG/2015592 dated 25.06.2015issued to petitioner No. 20, notice bearing Lr.No. /CMPT/PCB/ROR-II/2015-1416 dated 24.04.2015 issued to petitioner No. 21, directions bearing Lr.No.105/PCB/ROII/RCP/MDK/2015-6417 dated 16.03.2015 issued to petitioner No. 22, notice bearing Lr.No. /CMPT/PCB/ROR-II/2015-1416 dated 24.04.2015 issued to petitioner No. 23, directions bearing Lr.No. /PCB/RO-II/RCP/MDK/2014-6101 dated 10.12.2014 issued to petitioner No.24, notice bearing Lr.No. /CMPT/PCB/ROR-II/2015-1416 dated 24.04.2015 issued to petitioner No.25 and directions bearing Lr.No.72001/PCB/RO-NLG/2015 dated 25.04.2015 issued to petitioner No.26 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19 1(b) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondent not to insist upon installation of online continuous stack emission monitoring systems or online effluent quality monitoring systems in the units of the petitioners and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶19

The issue arises under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Water Act’) read with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Environment Act’). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the impugned proceedings prima facie are illegal and at any rate do not come within the scope of remedy of appeal provided under Section 28 of the Water Act.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for Telangana State Pollution Control Board/3^rd respondent contends that on a holistic view of the statutory scheme of the relevant laws viz., the Water Act/the Environment Act and National Green Tribunal Act, the

¶21

petitioners have effective statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate authority under the Acts and the writ petition is not maintainable. He further states that the reference to Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Act cannot be given a narrow meaning in understanding the remedy of appeal under the Acts.

¶22

We are in agreement with the submission of learned standing counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent. The remedy of appeal under Section 28 of the Water Act refers to Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Act. As rightly pointed by the learned standing counsel, the impugned proceedings or directions are concerned with the monitoring steps on the preventive principle governed by these laws. The writ petition is dismissed and the petitioners, if so advised, are free to pursue the remedy of appeal under the Water Act against the impugned proceedings in the writ petition.

¶23

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of.

¶24

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ________________________ S.V. BHATT, J 25-08-2015 ks

M/s. Kreative Organics Ltd., v. Central Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Kreative Organics Ltd., v. Central Pollution Control Board

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

Bireswar Das S/o Late Narayan Chandra Das Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sure Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

Nibedita Pradhan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

St.Daniel Christian Minority Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana

St.Job Christian Minority Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana

Azad Educational Society, Vs The State of Telangana