OM PRAKASH MITTAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-245
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 20,2019

OM PRAKASH MITTAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

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.