Rajesh Shankar, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in letter dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (respondent no.2), whereby which a direction has been issued for closing down the petitioner's unit and all its operations with immediate effect.
(2.) The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is doing the work of production of Bee Hive Hard Coke. On 14.10.2017, an inspecting team of the Regional Directorate of the Central Pollution Control Board, Kolkata conducted stack monitoring of the unit purportedly on the basis of a complaint received against the unit of the petitioner. The inspecting team submitted its report, based on which the respondent no.2 vide an order contained in letter no. IPC-V-SSI/Direction/13435 dated 10.11.2017 in purported exercise of powers delegated to him under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1986') directed the petitioner's unit to close down all its operation with immediate effect on the ground that dense fugitive emission was observed coming out from the Coal Crushing Unit due to non-operation of back filters and thereby causing huge air pollution in the vicinity; and the analysis of the stock monitoring indicated that the emission of particulate matter from the stack was found to be 238 mg/Nm3 against notified standard of 150 mg/Nm3. The petitioner on receipt of the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 immediately represented the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 211.2017, however, the same was not responded.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that neither the copy of the inspection report nor the laboratory test report, as mentioned in the impugned order has been made available to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing. Even show cause notice was not issued to him prior to passing the impugned order. Moreover, the petitioner was also not furnished the copy of the complaint purported to have been made against its industrial unit leading to the said inspection. The respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order has exceeded the jurisdiction purportedly delegated in terms with section 5 of the Act, 1986. The impugned order is vitiated on account of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the alleged shortcomings found against the petitioner's unit during the inspection dated 14.10.2017, are purely temporary in nature which are rectifiable. However, in absence of a copy of the inspection report as well as the laboratory test report, the petitioner is not in a position to comment on the correctness of the contents thereof.;