70.
$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 4768/2011

      DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE        ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Arjun Pant with Mr. Dinesh
                            Jindal, Adv.

                                  versus
      M/S OSHO UPWAN                       ..... Respondent
                   Through: None.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

                                ORDER

% 15.07.2011

1. The petition impugns the order dated 17th February, 2011 of the Financial Commissioner acting as an Appellate Authority under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, on an appeal preferred by the respondent.

2. The petitioner had vide order dated 29th January, 2010 in exercise of powers under Section 33(A) and Section 31(A) of the Act directed the respondent to close down its unit namely M/s Osho Upwan, Palla Bhakhtawar Road, Delhi with immediate effect and also directed, MCD to cancel the licence granted to the respondent and prosecution for failure to close the unit and further directed NDPL & DJB to disconnect the electricity and water supply. 1/-

3. It is inter alia the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that no appeal against the said directions was maintainable. Attention is invited to the order dated 5th March, 2010 of the same officer occupying the office of the Financial Commissioner in another case holding so.

4. The Financial Commissioner has in the order impugned in this petition held that the directions aforesaid were issued by the petitioner without giving any opportunity of being heard to the respondent and has set aside the directions issued by the petitioner vide order dated 29 th January, 2010 with liberty to the petitioner to pass appropriate orders after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent.

5. This writ petition came up before this Court first on 12 th July, 2011 when it was put to the counsel for the petitioner that rather than allowing time to be spent before this Court, would it not be expedient for the petitioner, to without prejudice to its legal contention aforesaid, grant an opportunity to the respondent of being heard and to pass fresh orders. It was felt that such course of action would be more expeditious and would result in directions, if found tenable after hearing the respondent, being issued at the earliest. The counsel for the petitioner had sought time to obtain instructions.

6. The counsel has today informed that he has instructions to agree to the aforesaid course of action. 2/-

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

a. The petitioner, without prejudice to its contention that the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue directions as aforesaid, to grant an opportunity of hearing to the respondent and after hearing the respondent to pass fresh directions under Section 33(A) (supra);

b. It is clarified that the order of the Financial Commissioner impugned in this petition shall not constitute a precedent in any similar appeal preferred before the Financial Commissioner and it shall remain open to the petitioner to satisfy the Financial Commissioner that appeals against such orders are not maintainable.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J JULY 15, 2011 pp..

3/-