THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.5761 of 2024

ORDER:

(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. Vikas Joshi, learned counsel representing M/s. Joshi and Chillara Legal Associates LLP, for the petitioner.

Mr. A.Vishnu Vardhana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Pollution Control Board for the respondents No.2 to 4.

2. In compliance of the order dated 05.03.2024, Mr. D.Krupanand, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Zonal Office, Hyderabad, is present.

3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

4. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as, “the Board”) under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1988, by which the petitioner has been directed to close the industry.

5. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a company engaged in the business of providing job work services in shading of bottles. The Environmental Engineer issued a show cause notice dated 23.01.2024 to the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that it is operating plastic washing industry engaged in the shading of glass bottles without obtaining consent from the Board and is discharging washed water openly into kutcha pit in contravention of G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 08.03.1996. The petitioner was asked to submit its reply within a period of seven days.

6. The petitioner thereupon submitted a reply vide e-mail on 30.01.2024 wherein it was stated that a plastic washing unit does not require any consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Water Act”) and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Air Act”). However, the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer passed an order on 15.02.2024 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and stated that the petitioner has not filed any reply to the show cause notice.

7. In the aforesaid factual background, this writ petition has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice has not been considered and without considering the reply, an order of closure has been passed.

9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel did not dispute the fact that the petitioner had submitted the reply to the show cause notice. However, it is submitted that inadvertently the same was not looked into by the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer. It is further submitted that an appeal lies under Section 33B of the Water Act before the National Green Tribunal.

10. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.

11. It is trite law that if an order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court can entertain the writ petition notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy (See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, [(2003) 2 SCC 107]).

12. In the instant case, even though the petitioner had filed the reply to the show cause notice, yet the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer has held that the petitioner has not filed the reply. Thus, it is evident that the order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and therefore it cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

13. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. The Board shall assign this case to some other officer, who shall afford an opportunity of hearing and shall pass a fresh order within a period of fifteen days from today. Let a copy of that order be filed in the office of this Court.

14. With