Ordering closure of industrial units on minor grounds is not in national interest.

The Chief Justice:

This common order shall dispose off all the above five writ petitions as the issue involved therein is identical.

2. Petitioners in these writ petitions are engaged in the business of tannery and their tannery-units are located in Pudukottai Main Raod, Sembattu, Trichy. Petitioner by these writ petitions pray for quashing the order dated 16-11-2004 passed by the first respondent. By that order, the first respondent, exercising powers delegated to it by the Central Government under Sec.5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has ordered the closure of the petitioners' units as well as stoppage of electricity service connection with immediate effect.

3. Heard Shri G. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Rita Chandrasekaran, learned standing counsel for the first respondent Board.

4. Though a number of contentions have been urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, these writ petitions, in our opinion, are liable to succeed on the very first ground, viz. that the impugned orders were passed against the petitioners without giving them an adequate opportunity of hearing and hence there was breach of principles of natural justice. This contention is expressly taken in paragraph 8 of the affidavit as well as in ground (a) of the grounds of the writ petition.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent Board wherein, it is alleged in paragraph 6 that several show cause notices were issued to the petitioners in the years 2000, 2002 and 2003. We may point out that this allegation is as vague as it could be as it is bereft of the dates on which such notices were issued and no copies of the show cause notices were annexed to the counter-affidavit. However, Mrs. Rita Chandrasekan, learned standing counsel produced before us the copy of the show cause notice dated 20-3-2003 wherein it is mentioned that during the inspection of the petitioners' unit on 18-3-2003 certain shortfalls were noticed. In our opinion, this show cause notice dated 20-3-2003 has no relevance at all. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the shortfalls mentioned in the notice dated 20-3-2003 had been removed by the petitioners. At any event, we are not concerned with the shortfalls found in the inspection held on 18-3-2003 but rather with the shortfalls noticed during the inspection held on 10-10-2004, as expressly mentioned in the impugned order dated 16-11-2004.

6. In the impugned order dated 16-11-2004, it is mentioned that when the petitioners' units were inspected by the Task Force of the first respondent Board on 10-10-2004 five shortfalls were noticed. It is pursuant to such an inspection that the present impugned orders were passed. In our opinion, after noticing the alleged shortfalls, it was incumbent on the first respondent Board to have issued a show cause notice to the petitioners pointing out the shortfalls found in their units in the inspection held on 10-10-2004 and asking them to show cause as to why appropriate action under law be not taken against them. It is evident that no such show cause notice was issued to the petitioners because the impugned order dated 16-11-2004 is a composite order not only mentioning the shortfalls found in the petitioners' units but also simultaneously directing the closure of their units and stoppage of electricity service connection. Obviously, this could not and should not have been done by one and the same order. The proper course of action for the first respondent Board was to have first issued a show cause notice to the petitioners, alleging the defects found in their units and giving them reasonable time to offer their explanation. This is the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice and is also the requirement of Rule 4(3-a) and (3-b) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, which reads as follows:

"4(3-a) The person, officer or authority to whom