502. 13546.18.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 13546 OF 2018

                 Hindalco Industries Ltd.                     .. Petitioner
                      Vs.
                 Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and ors. .. Respondents


                 Mr.Darius Khambatta, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Ashish Prasad
                 a/w Mr.Shailesh Poriaa, Ms.Mukta Dalta, Ms.A.A. Mujawar i/b
                 M/s.Economic Laws Practice, for the Petitioner.
                 Mr.A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondents No. 2, 3 & 5 - State.
                 Mr.Jitendra P. Jagtap, for Respondent No.1 (MPCB).


                                  CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, CHIEF JUSTICE &
                                          M.S.KARNIK, J.

DATE : 29th NOVEMBER, 2018 P.C. :

. Not on board. Mentioned. due to urgency, taken up in the Production Board.

2. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 11/12/2018.

3. Learned Counsel Shri Jagtap waives service of notice 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:49:09 :::

502. 13546.18.doc for Respondent No.1. Learned AGP waives service of notice for Respondents No. 2, 3 & 5.

4. By an order dated 27/11/2018 passed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Kolhapur the Petitioner's unit (bauxite mine) at Dhangarwadi is directed to be closed. Further directions to disconnect water and electricity supply are also passed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Shri Khambata submits that against an order passed under Section 33 (A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, there is remedy of Appeal under Section 33(B) to the National Green Tribunal. However, in respect of order passed under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, no such Appeal is prescribed. It is submitted that in the facts, show cause notice for closure purported to have been issued by the Board on 16/11/2018 has not been received by the Petitioner.

2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:49:09 :::

502. 13546.18.doc

6. On merits, learned Senior Counsel submits that it would be appropriate if this Court entertains this Petition under writ jurisdiction.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for MPCB submits that the Petition has been served on him in the afternoon today. He seeks adjournment.

8. We have heard learned Senior Counsel on merits to the limited extent of prayer for grant of ad-interim relief. On considering the submissions advanced, perusal of the provisions of the Acts stated above, we are inclined to grant ad-interim relief to the Petitioner as the Petitioner's unit at Dhangarwadi is directed to be closed with immediate effect.

9. By way of ad-interim relief, we stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 27/11/2018 till the next date.

 (M.S.KARNIK, J.)                                 (CHIEF JUSTICE)

                                                                              3/3



::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2018                 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:49:09 :::