JUDGMENT

Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, J.

The petitioners, inter alia, seek quashing of the complaint titled as " Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee v. Cosmos Enterprises " bearing No.NACT/2786/2017 under Sections 25 /44/49 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Sections 37 /43 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1987 as well as the summoning order dated 06.09.2017 (Annexure P7) passed by JMIC, Chandigarh vide which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial.

2. The petitioner No.1 is the firm which carried out business in the name and style of M/s Cosmos Enterprises and petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of the petitioner No.1-unit. The petitioner No.2 took on rent a plot for running a plastic unit components from Plastic Dana. Thereafter in 2015, the petitioners applied and was granted provisional consent on 07.05.2015 (Annexure P2). Vide letter dated 03.08.2015 (Annexure P3), the respondent demanded the additional amount as well as bank guanrantee.

3. A show cause notice/letter dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure P4) was issued under Section 31 -A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, (in short 'the Air Act') and Section 33 -A of the Water (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short 'the Water Act') vide which the respondent-Committee proposed to issue directions to close the unit forthwith; not to run the unit without prior permission by the CPCC; and to disconnect the water/electricity supply to the unit. An opportunity was granted to the petitioners to show cause within 15 days from the date of its issuance of the notice as to why proposed directions may not be confirmed and why the prosecution proceedings may not be initiated against them. Since it was alleged that the said unit did not take any action for controlling pollution and had neglected the law, order, rules, regulations and bye-laws related to the Pollution Controls Act from the date of establishment of the unit in dispute, a complaint was filed before the CJM, Chandigarh and consequently, vide impugned order dated 06.09.2017 passed by JMIC, Chandigarh, the petitioners were summoned to face trial.

4. In its complaint, it was averred by the Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee that the petitioners-accused had established and were running a manufacturing unit for wooden furniture along with spray painting at Sector 45, Village Burail, UT, Chandigarh. The said unit was allegedly established and operating without getting consent of the Appropriate Authority i.e. respondent-Committee, as required under Section 25 of the Water Act and under Section 21 of the Air Act. It is further averred in the complaint that the petitioners had applied for consent to operate while submitting application form on 30.01.2015 wherein it was stated that the petitioners' unit is running since the year 2010.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint as well as the impugned summoning order are liable to be set aside being not based on law, facts and evidence. The following contentions were raised by counsel for the petitioners:-

(i) The primary contention of the petitioners is that the summoning order itself is not sustainable as the same has been passed on an assumption that the petitioners are running a manufacturing unit of wooden furniture along with spray painting whereas the unit run by the petitioners pertains to manufacturing of plastic components. In this backdrop, on this ground alone, the summoning order is liable to be set aside.

(ii) Pr