JUDGEMENT
GOVIND MATHUR,CJ. -
(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.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.