SNG Vs. Govt. of NCT – Delhi High Court directed not to take any coercive action without following due process of law
July 18, 2022Virender Vs. MGF – In view of builder agreeing to repair and execute conveyance of apartment and settlement reached, NCDRC disposed complaint
September 20, 2022
The Delhi High Court has stayed the order passed on March 25, 2022, DPCC/Department of Environment government of NCT Delhi which had passed a sealing U/s.33(A) of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and U/s. 31(A) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 against a unit situated at Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi.
The Respondent/DPCC had also directed the SDM Kalkaji to close the unit with immediate effect and also directed DISCOM/BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. to disconnect the electricity supply of the said property.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma in an order passed on August 25, 2022, stated that “prima facie, the Court finds itself unable to sustain the order passed under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the petitioner held a valid consent to operate. It is therefore manifest that the impugned order incorrectly records that the petitioner did not hold that permission”.
Court further said, till the next date of listing, there shall be a stay of the order. The BSES shall take appropriate steps for reconnection of the electricity supply to the unit subject to the petitioner complying with all statutory formalities. Additionally, the concerned SDM shall take immediate steps to de-seal the premises in question.
The Court meanwhile noted that no sealing order should have been passed by DPCC without issuing a show cause and without the opportunity of being heard and without considering the reply/representation of the petitioner against the said order and the said representation has not been decided as yet.
Appearing for the petitioner Advocate Sumit Gahlawat argued that orders passed by respondents for sealing and disconnection action are totally illegal as the petitioner was having valid consent to operate.
Advocate Sumit Gahlawat further argued that the impugned closure order/direction dated March 25, 2022, have been issued in complete violation of principles of natural justice and no show cause notice was ever issued by the DPCC and the petitioner was never been given an opportunity of being heard before issuance of the said impugned closure order/direction dated March 25, 2022.
The petitioner was represented through Sumit Gahlawat, TS Thakran & Bikram Shah Advocates of Fidelegal Advocates & Solicitors.
This story was featured in following publications. Click to read.
