Samaresh Banerjee, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application the question which has come up before this Court for its consideration is whether the West Bengal Pollution Board could have passed the impugned order directing the concerned industry of the writ petitioner under Section 33A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 to close down without giving any hearing to the writ petitioners.
(2.) The aforesaid industry of the petitioner which is registered as a Small Scale Industry, is a non-ferrous foundry with three Coal fired open hearth furnace. According to the petitioner the same was constructed in the year 1986, and such foundry is used for melting of pure Aluminium waste and to convert into secondary Aluminium Ingot. It is claimed by the petitioner that no oil or chemical is used in the furnace which can create environmental pollution, and there is emission of smoke from the said ovens in the morning for one hour when the said ovens are fired and thereafter there is no chance of emission of smoke during the whole day. On 2nd June 1995, the petitioner was served with the impugned order under Section 33 A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to the said Act) by which the petitioners were directed to close down their manufacturing process with immediate effect on two grounds, namely the said industry had failed to obtain consent of the said Board under the said Act and also under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, and has not yet erected any Pollution control devices to prevent its pollution load from the manufacturing process. It is the contention of the petitioner that such order is in patent violation of the mandatory provision of sub-rule (3) of Rule 34 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules 1975, which provides, inter alia, that the State Board before issuing any direction to any industry under Section 33A of the said Act shall give an opportunity to the person concerned to file objection to the action proposed to be taken by the Board and under sub-rule (4) within 45 days from the date of receipt of such objection the Board is to take the final decision after considering such objection. It is contended that no such opportunity as provided in the aforesaid Rules was given to the petitioner and for the first time such closure order has been served upon the petitioner. No opportunity has also been given to the petitioner to take any remedial measures for prevention of such pollution. It has also been contended by the petitioner that the impugned' closure order has been passed at the instance of the local leaders of political party in power in order to malign the petitioner No.2 who happened to be a Congress Leader and social worker.
(3.) Since even at the admission stage it transpired that the aforesaid rule does provide for an opportunity to the person affected by the order to file an objection to such an order and admittedly such opportunity was never given by the respondents to the petitioner, both the parties agreed to the final disposal of the matter on the question of law on examination of record without filing any affidavit.;