1

12th February,
 2020
 (AK)
  9

                                          W.P. 2727(W) of 2020


                           Surya Alloy Industries Limited & Anr.
                                                  Vs.
                              West Bengal Pollution Control Board & Ors.


                             Mr.   Jaydip Kar
                             Mr.   Tanmoy Chakraborty
                             Mr.   Gautam Shroff
                             Mr.   Siddharth Shroff
                                                     ...For the Petitioners



                      The petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case that the

                 closure order, coupled with a direction to disconnect the electricity of

                 the petitioners, under Sections 33A of Water (Prevention and Control

                 of Pollution) Act, 1974, Section 31A of Air (Prevention and Control of

                 Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and

                 corresponding Rules is bad in law in so far as only Section 31A of the

                 1981 Act is applicable, if at all, since the alleged violation pertains to

                 air pollution norms.

                      A plain reading of Section 31A of the 1981 Act reveals that

                 although a there is a non obstante Clause preceding such section, the

                 same operates in respect of other laws than the 1981 Act itself and the

                 latter portion of the said Section clarifies that the power to give

                 directions incorporated in Section 31A of the 1981 Act are subject to
                                     2


the provisions of that Act, in exercise of the powers of the Board and

performance of its functions under that Act itself.

     Learned senior counsel for the petitioners rightly points out that

Section 21(4), first and second proviso, of the 1981 Act provide for

cancellation of consent to carry on the industry, which has virtually

been done in the present case. The said provisos stipulate that a

reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to the person

concerned, which was not granted, apparently, in the present case.

     As such, the action of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board

in issuing the notice annexed as Annexure-P2 at page-49 of the

instant writ petition was prima facie without jurisdiction and de hors

the statue itself, thereby attracting the jurisdiction of this court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

     The petitioners are given leave to file their affidavit-of-service

during the course of the day.

     It is submitted by learned senior counsel that although the

primary contesting parties, that is, respondent nos.1, 2 and 4, have

been served, the petitioners pray for dispensation of prior notice on the other respondents under Article 26 of the Writ Rules, which is hereby granted in view of the urgency involved.

The petitioners, however, shall intimate this order to the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4, indicating that the matter will next appear for hearing at 10.30 a.m. on February 25, 2020. 3

The operation of the impugned order, being annexed as Annexure-P2 at page-49 of the writ, directing the closure of the petitioner's concern and disconnection of electricity, shall remain stayed till March 15, 2020 or until further orders whichever is earlier.

The respondent authorities are restrained from disconnecting the electric supply of the petitioners till March 15, 2020 or until further orders as earlier.

The respondent authorities shall act on the communication of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, without insisting for a certified copy or a website copy of this order.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)