Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
GOVIND MATHUR, CJ., SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Om Prakash Mittal - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. and others - Respondent
Writ -C No. 64066 of 2011
Decided On : 20-02-2019
For the Appellant : Swapnil Kumar
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh, Dr. Hari Nath Tripathi, Rahul Sahai
The court emphasized that the petitioner had no standing to challenge the consent on the ground of violation of the relevant provisions and declined to interfere due to the pending litigation and the operation of an interim order.
Headnote:
Air Pollution Control - Consent Extension - Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - The court discussed the validity of the consent granted to operate an industrial unit in an air pollution control area, considering objections raised and the reasons for granting consent as per sub-Section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, 1981.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the extension of consent to operate an industrial unit, claiming that the consent was granted without considering objections and without providing reasons as required by the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's challenge was an offshoot of other pending litigations related to the dissolution of a partnership firm and an arbitral award. The court also noted that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court and declined to interfere.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the consent extension, consideration of objections, and compliance with the provisions of the relevant acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had no locus to challenge the consent on the ground of violation of the provisions of sub-Section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, 1981, and declined to interfere due to the pending litigation and the operation of an interim order in favor of the respondent.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
ORDER :
Govind Mathur, C.J.
1. Invoking powers under sub-Section (4) of Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1981”), the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board') extended consent to M/s Om Textile Mill, Saraswati Kund, Mathura to operate an industrial unit in an air pollution control area. To assail validity of the consent aforesaid, this petition for writ is preferred.
2. The case of the petitioner is that under a written deed dated 01.05.2002, a partnership firm in the name of M/s Om Saree Centre, Saraswati Kund, Mathura was constituted. The firm had four partners including the present petitioner with equal share. Being engaged in the business of printing sarees, the firm established a processing unit after having necessary consent from the Board. In the year 2007, three other partners of the firm, excluded the petitioner from the partnership, also constituted another firm in the name of M/s Om Saree Centre. This firm was dissolved on 22.09.2007 and its all business, goodwill, building, plant and machinery, etc. were taken over by one partner Sri Anil Kumar Mittal, as sole owner. This entire property then was rented out to M/s Om Textile Mill, Saraswati Kund, Mathura. M/s Om Textile Mill then preferred an application as per sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, 1981 to have consent of the Board to run an industrial unit in an air pollution control area. The Board vide order impugned dated 31.01.2008 extended its consent in favour of M/s Om Textile Mill, Mathura. Prior to that, the petitioner submitted certain objections for grant of consent to M/s Om Textile Mill Ltd. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that a consent was already in currency in favour of M/s Om Saree Centre, Saraswati Kund, Mathura and, without partition of that, no further consent could have been granted to any other firm/company or a body. As per the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Mittal by placing certain false and fake documents was making efforts to have consent from the Board by misleading its authorities.
3. In this petition for writ, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Regional Manager of the Board while extending consent in favour of M/s Om Textile Mill (respondent no. 5) has not taken into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner. According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the Regional Manager was under obligation to consider all the objections raised and to decide the same by a reasoned order. The grant of consent without examining the objections raised by the petitioner is absolutely unjust, arbitrary and an outcome of colourable exercise of powers. It is further submitted that the consent granted on 31.01.2008 is further bad as the order does not contain the reasons which are required to be recorded as per provisions of sub-Section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, 1981.
4. Per contra, as per learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5, this petition for writ is nothing but an effort to frustrate an arbitral award passed by the Arbitrators among the partners of M/s Om Saree Centre, Saraswati Kund, Mathura. It is submitted that after constitution of partnership firm in the name of M/s Om Saree Centre, Saraswati Kund, Mathura, some dispute arose between its partners who happens to be real brothers. With consent of the parties, Sri Roop Kishore Bansal, Advocate, Sri Ganesh Prasad and Sri Ram Lal Agrawal were appointed as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties and an award was passed by them on 19.06.2007. As per the award aforesaid, the entire business of the firm M/s Om Saree Centre was to be given to Sri Anil Kumar Mittal, a partner of the firm. Being aggrieved by the award, the petitioner preferred an application as per provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1996”) before the District Judge, Mathura.
