Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3025 / 2017
M/s Rahul Texo Print, Raika Bagh Industrial Area, Through Its
Proprietor Mr. Vinod Kumar Singhvi S/o Sh. Gautamchand
Singhvi,, R/o Rohit Complex, Ward No. 7, Maliyon Ka Bas,
Ummedpura, Balotra-344022.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Jodhpur Through Its
Chairman & Managing Director,, New Power House Road, Jodhpur.
2. The Assistant Engineer (Rural),, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Ltd., Balotra, District Barmer.
3. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Through Its Regional
Officer, Balotra, District Barmer
4. District Collector, Barmer.
5. S.D.O., Balotra, District Barmer
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sandeep Shah
For Respondent no1. & 2 : Mr.J.S.Solanki
For Respondent no.3 : Mr.Manish Shishodia
For Respondents no.4 & 5 : Mr.O.P.Boob
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Judgment
11/05/2017
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
action of the Sub Divisional Officer, Balotra in directing Jodhpur
Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL), to disconnect the electricity
supply of the petitioner inasmuch as, on the spot inspection,
leakage/seepage was found in the gutter/drain built of RCC
adjacent to the wall inside the industry.
(2 of 4)
[CW-3025/2017]
2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that after carrying out
the repairs, the minor leakage found already stand sealed, which
stands verified by the inspecting team of Rajasthan State Pollution
Control Board (RSPCB), Balotra yet, the electricity supply of the
petitioner is not being restored by the respondents.
3. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner
had earlier filed an appeal before the National Green Tribunal
(NGT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, however, the same was
dismissed by the NGT observing that since no written order has
been passed by the authority concerned under Section 33A of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and
therefore, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 16 of the
NGT Act, 2010, cannot be invoked. Hence, this petition.
4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent
no.4 & 5 taking the stand that on the spot inspection by the team
of RSPCB, the leakage/seepage was found in the gutter/drain
constructed by RCC adjacent to the wall in the petitioner industry
and therefore, the action of the respondents in directing
disconnection of the electricity supply of the petitioner is
absolutely justified. The action taken is sought to be justified by
the RSPCB on the strength of the directions issued by the NGT,
Principal Bench, New Delhi, by way of order dated 1.9.15 passed
in Original Application No.34(thc)/2014. However, it is not
disputed on behalf of the RSPCB that the small leakage/seepage
found, after repair carrying out by the petitioner stands sealed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that
after carrying out the necessary repairs, the leakage/seepage
(3 of 4)
[CW-3025/2017]
found having been sealed, there is no reason why the electricity
supply of the petitioner should not be restored. Learned counsel
urged that the petitioner is operating its own Effluent Treatment
Plant (ETP) and RO Plant which are functional and therefore, no
water pollution whatsoever is likely to be caused by the petitioner
industrial unit if it is permitted to operate. Learned counsel
submitted that the action of the respondents in not restoring the
electricity supply and permitting the petitioner to operate its
industry, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary.
6. The counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that on
account of the leakage/seepage found, the electricity supply of the
petitioner unit was rightly directed to be disconnected, however, it
is fairly not disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondents
that as per report of RO, RSPCB, Balotra submitted after fresh
inspection made, the leakage point was found repaired and
permanently blocked by cement mixed material and the internal
drain was also found dry. That apart, no outlet was observed
inside/outside the industry premises.
7. On being asked by the court that if the necessary repairs
have been carried out and no leakage/seepage persists then why
the electricity supply has not been restored, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents had no answer.
8. It is to be noticed that the petitioner industrial unit is
operating its own ETP and RO Plant and thus, but for the
leakage/seepage noticed as above, no effluent was being
discharged by the petitioner outside the industrial premises. It is
not in dispute that after necessary repairs being carried out by the
(4 of 4)
[CW-3025/2017]
petitioner industrial unit, the leakage/seepage stand sealed and no
effluent is being discharged by the petitioner unit outside the
industrial premises. In this view of the matter, the respondents
are not justified in continuing with the disconnection of the
electricity supply of the petitioner in respect whereof no written
order was passed at any point of time.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to restore the electricity supply of the petitioner
forthwith. However, it is made clear that on the petitioner
industrial unit being made operational after restoration of the
electricity supply, if it is found discharging effluent outside the
industrial unit or any leakage/seepage is noticed, the respondents
shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with
law. No order as to costs.
(SANGEET LODHA), J.
aditya/