- (1.) The petitioner is a registered partnership firm having its factory at E-107, RIICO Industrial Area, Bagru, Phase II, Jaipur and engaged in the business of pyrolysis of waste tyres. Consent to operate under Sections 25 & 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter "the Act of 1974") and under Section 21(4) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter "the Act of 1981") was granted to the petitioner-firm vide order dated 31.03.2015. Complaints having been made against the alleged pollution caused by the petitioner-firm, the electricity supply to the petitioner-firm's factory was disconnected on 19.06.2015. Aggrieved, the petitioner-firm approached the Zonal Chief Engineer, Jaipur Discom and an inquiry with regard to the arbitrary disconnection of the electricity supply to the petitioner-firm's factory is underway.
(2.) Be as it may, vide order dated 02.07.2015 without as much any notice to the petitioner-firm, consent to operate granted on 31.03.2015 has been revoked.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner-firm has submitted that revocation of consent to operate without notice was an issue before this Court in the case of M/s. R.K. Enterprises Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCWP No.9366/2015, decided on 08.09.2015. Thereunder it was held as under : "In view of the aforesaid facts eschewing other issues in the writ petition, I would be inclined to set aside the order dated 02.07.2015, passed by the respondent-Board. The petitioner-firm however would be under an obligation to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Act of 1974 and the Act of 1981 while operating its manufacturing unit. Further as the order dated 02.07.2015 has been set aside only on the ground of it being vitiated by principles of natural justice, the respondent-Board shall be free to re-initiate proceedings for withdrawal of the consent to operate under both the Act of 1974 and 1981 and in the event the petitioner-firm is found in breach of the conditions of the consent to operate dated 12.05.2015, such consent will be liable to be revoked and further requisite directions passed. Further in the event of the respondent-Board initiating proceedings for withdrawal of the consent to operate dated 12.05.2015, the petitioner-firm shall be under an obligation to cooperate and not obstruct the proceedings by seeking unwarranted adjournments. If the petitioner-firm were to obstruct/delay the proceedings for withdrawal of the consent to operate dated 12.05.2015, the respondent-Board shall be free to proceed ex-parte after duly recording the reasons therefor.";