IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

              Writ Petition (M/S) No. 361 of 2016


Texplas Textiles India Pvt. Ltd.           ........         Petitioner
                               versus
State of Uttarakhand & others              ........      Respondents

Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent no.1. Mr. Shiv Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Aman Rab, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

U.C. Dhyani, J (Oral) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others:

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the sealing order dated 15.02.2016, issued by respondent no. 3, quashing the closure notice dated 06.02.2016, issued by respondent no. 2 and quashing the disconnection of power notice dated 08.02.2016, issued by respondent no. 4.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 to decide the application dated 06.02.2016, acknowledged by respondent no. 2 on 18.02.2016, regarding the renewal of Board consent and to direct the respondent no. 2 to dispose the same by a reasoned and speaking order.

2) The petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned order dated 06.02.2016, issued by respondent no. 2, directing the petitioner to close down the Unit/Manufacturing processes with immediate effect in exercise of powers conferred under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

3) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, among other things, that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the respondent has issued the impugned order without giving any reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's company.

4) It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even before the judgment dated 10.12.2015 so rendered by Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (for short NGT), the consent by the respondent Board was either granted or was being processed. It is not a case in which the consent was being processed after the judgment of Hon'ble NGT.

5) It is also submitted that the Hon'ble NGT, in its judgment has observed that industries, which are in the process of complying with the directions issued by Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board (respondent Board herein) and/or are installing Anti Pollution Devices like ETP or other 3 mechanism to ensure that trade effluent discharge by them on land, drains, water bodies or any other places is strictly complied with prescribed parameter would not be closed and would be permitted to do the needful at the earliest and in any case within three months.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondents may also be directed to restore the power supply and remove the seal of the plant.

7) Learned counsel for the respondent Board submitted that Board is ready to re-consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.

8) Learned counsel for the parties stated before this Court that writ petitions filed against similar notices have already been allowed by this Court and identical order can be passed.

9) Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage itself by directing the petitioner to make representation to the respondent Board within a week, annexing therein copy of the writ petition, which it has filed before this Court.

10) The respondent Board is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner and re-consider its 4 case by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of two weeks of receipt of representation. Notice dated 06.02.2016 shall be kept in abeyance till then.

11) Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that in case the petitioner represents its request for removal of the seal of the plant as well as power supply to the plant, in that event, power supply will be restored within forty eight hours from the time of supply of certified copy of the order as well as copy of writ petition.

12) Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties today itself on payment of usual charges.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.) 23.02.2016 Negi