STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Vs. ASHALATA SAHOO
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) MR . Justice R.K. Patra, President -Ashalata Sahoo and three others filed complaint against the Executive Engineer, Central Supply Electrical Division (hereinafter referred to as CESCO) and Orissa State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') alleging deficiency in service. They also prayed that there should be no disconnection of power supply to their stone crusher units.
(2.) BY order dated 16.4.2007, the District Forum allowed the complaint with a direction to the Executive Engineer, CESCO and the Board to pay rupees 20,000 as compensation to the complainants and restore power supply in case it was disconnected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Board has filed First Appeal No. 411 of 2007. The Executive Engineer, CESCO has filed First Appeal No. 434 of 2007 challenging the validity of the aforesaid order. Both the appeals being analogous, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
(3.) THE complainant No. 1 (Ashalata Sahoo), complainant No. 2 (Trilochan Rout), complainant No. 3 (Sudhakar Sahoo) and complainant No. 4 (Chandrasekhar Sahoo) were running stone crushers each. The Member Secretary of the Board directed each of them under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Air Act') to close down the operation of the stone crusher units with immediate effect. The CESCO authority was directed to disconnect supply of electricity to the complainants' stone crusher units immediately.
This Commission had the occasion (vide First Appeal No. 481 of 2006 disposed of on 3.12.2007) to consider the question as to whether contrary to second part of Section 46 of the Air Act any Court or "other authority" can pass an injunction in respect of any action taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Air Act. After dealing with the relevant provisions, this Commission held that "other authority" appearing in the second part of Section 46 of the Air Act included "Forums" constituted under the Consumer Protection Act and in view of the statutory bar no order of injunction can be passed in respect of any action taken in pursuance of Section 31A of the Air Act. In the present case, the Board as well as the CESCO authorities have been restrained from disconnecting power supply or to restore the same if already disconnected. This order is in the form of injunction which cannot be passed in the face of the bar contained in the second part of Section 31A.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.