V.K. Jhanji, J. - (1.) THIS order of mine shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 17628 of 1996 and 9791 of 1998.
(2.) IN CWP No. 17628 of 1996, challenge is to order dated 23.11.1994 passed by the Punjab Pollution Control Board, Patiala whereby consent to the petitioner industry to discharge its effluent has been refused as it failed to provide adequate treatment plant to treat its effluent to contain the pollutants within the standards prescribed by the Board. Challenge is also to order dated 8.10.1996 dismissing the appeal by the Appellate Authority against order dated 23.11.1994 whereby consent was refused to the petitioner. In CWP No. 9791 of 1998, petitioner has challenged order dated 23.6.1998 whereby Punjab Pollution Control Board, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 33 -A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 1974 Act) directed the petitioner and other authorities to close down the petitioner's industrial unit and to disconnect electricity supply to the industry with immediate effect. It has also been ordered that in case of non -compliance of the direction, the Managing Director/Director and other Officers/officials concerned of the Industry shall be liable for action under Section 41 read with Section 47 of 1974 Act.
(3.) IN brief, the facts are that the petitioner industry is engaged in the manufacture of maize starch including modified starches, destrine, liquid glucose etc. During the manufacturing process, the industry generates effluents. Vide order dated 22.12.1975, Punjab Pollution Control Board granted consent to the industry for discharging its effluent in public sewerage, as required under Section 25/26 of 1974 Act. Thereafter, on the application of the petitioner, consent granted was renewed from time to time. The last consent granted to the petitioner was vide order dated 2.4.1990 for one year i.e. valid upto 20.3.1991. According to the petitioner, it applied for renewal of the consent vide application dated 19.1.1991. Further, according to it, respondent -Board asked for some clarifications which were supplied. The Board fixed 4th July, 1991 for giving personal hearing to the petitioner but the petitioner company vide telegram dated 1.7.1991, requested that personal hearing may be given on 2.7.1991 at Chandigarh. Petitioner has alleged that to its surprise, the Board raised certain points vide letter dated 7.8.1991 and the same were replied. According to the petitioner, respondent -Board collected 6 samples at various stages from the industrial unit of the petitioner company and the said samples met parameters prescribed by the Board, Petitioner has averred that it came to know that the respondent -Board allegedly collected some more samples of trade effluents on 7.7.1992 and for first time forwarded analysis report of same samples to the petitioner vide letter dated 22.1.1993, Petitioner has alleged that on February 19, 1993, it intimated to the respondent -Board that the alleged samples were never collected from the industrial unit of the petitioner nor were they collected as per the provisions of 1974 Act. Petitioner has averred that no order whatsoever was passed on the application filed by the petitioner for granting consent as required under Section 25/26 of 1974 Act. Therefore, it again submitted an application for renewal of consent on 23.4.1994 for a further period of two years along with the consent fee. Petitioner has alleged that the respondent -Board vide letter dated 26.10.1994, reiterated its earlier stand that the samples collected from the industrial unit of the petitioner company have not met the parameters. The Board also intimated to the petitioner that the same samples were collected in the presence of Ashok Kumar, Agent of the petitioner company who refused to accept and sign the notice and data sheet. Petitioner has alleged that it received letter dated 23.11.1994 from the Board refusing the consent. According to it, decision of the Board in refusing the consent is absolutely illegal and unwarranted. Further, according to the petitioner, it filed an appeal under Section 28 of 1974.Act before the Appellate Authority but the latter, without considering the submissions made by the petitioner company, vide order dated 8.10.1996, dismissed the appeal. As stated earlier, orders dated 23.11.1994 and 8.10.1996 are under challenge in C.W.P. No. 17628 of 1996.;