JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

(The matter has been taken up today, as 03.03.2026 was declared as a holiday.)

1. The prayer in the instant petitions is for the setting aside of the orders issued by Respondent No. 2/ Delhi Pollution Control Committee (“DPCC”), both of which are dated 01.05.2025. By way of the said orders, Respondent No. 2 has imposed environment compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- upon the petitioners for environmental damage. The said orders have been passed in furtherance of impugned Show Cause Notices issued by Respondent No. 2, both of which are dated 10.01.2025.

2. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the reply filed by them, and without affording a hearing opportunity, in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. At this stage, it may be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the impugned orders. The order dated 01.05.2025, passed by Respondent No. 2 in W.P.(C) 7580-2025, records the following observations vis-à-vis the reply filed by the petitioner:

“And whereas, the addressee unit has submitted a reply on 23/01/25 & 24/02/2025 which is found to be not satisfactory by the competent authority”

4. Similarly, the order dated 01.05.2025, passed by Respondent No. 2 in W.P.(C) 7575-2025, records the following observations vis-à-vis the reply filed by the petitioner:

“And whereas, the addressee unit has not submitted any reply to the abovementioned SCN.”

5. A bare perusal of the above extracts shows that Respondent No. 2 has failed to give due consideration to the replies filed by the petitioners, or even lay down the reasons as to why such reply was found not satisfactory. Moreover, the Court finds that the observation recorded in W.P.(C) 7575-2025, is entirely erroneous, considering that the petitioner had, in fact, filed a reply, and the same was even acknowledged by Respondent No. 2. Therefore, the impugned order shows a complete non-application of mind on the part of Respondent No. 2.

6. This Court, in Hi-Print Corporation v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.¹Order dated 07.04.2026 in W.P.(C) 10987/2025.; M/s India Navigation Company v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.²Order dated 25.03.2026 in W.P.(C) 7357/2025.; and Mangolpuri Industrial Area Phase 1 & 2 CETP Society v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Ors.³Order dated 22.04.2026 in W.P.(C) 4302/2022 and W.P.(C) 6804/2022. has set aside similar actions of the DPCC. In Mangolpuri (supra), the Court made the following observations:

“5. The Court, thus, finds that the impugned orders, though record the factum of issuance of the SCN and the consequent reply filed by the petitioners, they, however, do not spell out any reasons as to why the reply was not found to be satisfactory.

6. The Supreme Court, in Siemens Engg.& Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India⁶, held that recording of reasons in support of an order is a basic tenet of natural justice. It was further held that the requirement of passing reasoned orders must be observed in its proper spirit; a mere pretence of compliance would not be enough. Further, in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin⁷, the Supreme Court made the following observations on the importance of passing reasoned orders:

“44. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while decidingan issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisit