1


                  ANNEXURE-C
     High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
            Bench at Indore, Indore
        CONTINUATION ORDER SHEET

              Writ Petition No.11388/2018
                 (M/s. Impex Commercial Private Limited
                                  Versus
                The State of Madhya Pradesh AND OTHERS)
Indore, Dated 18.07.2018
    Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
      Shri      Romesh       Dave,       learned          Government
Advocate for respondent No.1 / State of Madhya
Pradesh.
      Shri Ambar Pare, learned counsel for respondents
No.2 and 3 / MP Pollution Control Board.
      Shri D.S. Panwar, learned counsel for respondent
No.4 / MP Electricity Board.
      Heard on the question of admission.
                           ORDER

By this writ petition under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging order dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure P/2). He is also aggrieved by the action of the Superintending Engineer (Operation & Maintenance), MPEB, Indore (respondent No.4), whereby electricity supply in the premises of the petitioner has been disconnected in pursuance to order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the National Green Tribunal with regard to Rolling Mill.

2. On 18.05.2018, we passed the following order: -

"By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging order dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure P/2) passed by the National Green Tribunal, Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal in Appeal No.40/2017 (CZ) and M.A. No.507/2017, directing the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board to disconnect electricity supply of the petitioner unit.

As per record, on 30.10.2017, an order had been passed by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board for closure of the petitioner unit. Against the aforesaid order, an application has been filed before the Tribunal for grant of stay. The learned Tribunal, considering the inspection report dated 30.01.2018, has observed that the directions issued on 30.10.2017 had not been complied with, and therefore, Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board has initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Division Bench of Madhya Preadesh High Court in the case of H.K. Kalchuri & Education Trust v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Writ Petition No.17122/2016 vide order dated 20.10.2016 has held that even if a remedy of appeal under Section 22 is available, the law laid down is that the power of writ jurisdiction available to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not taken away and in a case where the State Arbitration Tribunal or statutory appeal is found to have exercised jurisdiction which is not available or acted in excess of jurisdiction, the High Court can still exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.

He has further drawn our attention to order dated 13.05.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.8908/2016 Main Jabalpur (Suresh Sachdev s/o Late Bholaram Suchdev v.

Union of India) whereby direction issued by the learned National Green Tribunal, Bhopal has been stayed. Similar is the view taken by the Madras High Court in Kollidam Aaru Pathukappu Nala v. The Union of India Writ Petition No.7146/2014 decided on 06.08.2014 and submitted that the writ petition is maintainable. Considering the aforesaid, let show cause notice be issued to the respondents on payment of process 3 fee within seven days; returnable within four weeks.

In the meanwhile, in respect of grant of interim relief, officers of respondents No.2 and 3 / Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board are directed to inspect the factory premises of the petitioner located at Lebad, Ghata Billod, District Dhar (MP); and if they are satisfied that the factory is running as per the norms of the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, in that event, electricity supply in the premises of the petitioner may not be disconnected till the next date of hearing."

3. In compliance to the aforesaid order, inspection of premises of the petitioner / company has been carried out by the Competent Authority of Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control on 06.06.2018. At the premises of the petitioner it was found that the petitioner's company has installed primary and secondary Air Pollution Control Equipment. ON 26.06.2018, air samples were collected from the stack monitoring main source induction furnace and analyzed under Section 26 (3) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The samples collected were found to be within prescribed limit. Thereafter, an ambient air quality monitoring has also been conducted from 30.06.2018 to 01.07.2018, which has also been found within the prescribed limit.

4. A detail reply has been filed by respondent No.2 and 3 / MP Pollution Control Board; and they in paragraphs No.3 and 4 of their reply (which has been supported with the affidavit of Regional Officer, Dhar and Officer-in- Charge of the case) has very categorically admitted that the petitioner is complying with the provisions of the Air 4 (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; and necessary equipment has been installed in the premises of the petitioner / company.

5. In view of the aforesaid subsequent event, so also the fact that the matter is pending for consideration before National Green Tribunal, we dispose of the writ petition, as no further order is required in the present writ petition.

6. However, Competent Authority of respondents No.3 and 4 / MP Pollution Control is free to periodically check the premises of the petitioner / company, prepare report under the provisions of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution Act, 1974

7. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition No.11388/2018 is disposed of.

                     (P.K. Jaiswal)                  (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
                        Judge                               Judge
Pithawe RC

Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithwe Date: 2018.07.19 10:45:37 +05'30'