HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
              ***

CWP No. 18959 of 2008.

*** M/S M.V.Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others.

*** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh.

*** Present: Shri Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, with Shri N.K.Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

*** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) After arguing the matter at considerable length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to file an appeal in terms of Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1974 (for brevity to be referred to as the Act), against the impugned order passed by the Pollution Control Board withdrawing the consent earlier given by it, provided the petitioner is protected against any such appeal being dismissed on the ground of limitation. He submits that the impugned order by which the consent given in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn, was passed as early as on August 20, 2007. Any appeal under Section 28 of the Act would, therefore, be time barred as on date. He seeks a direction to the effect that the appellate authority would entertain the appeal and dispose the same off on merits as though it had been filed within the time permissible in the law.

The order impugned in this petition withdraws consent earlier granted by the State Government and is clearly appealable under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. An appeal in terms of that decision can be filed within a period of 30 days, from the date on which the impugned order is communicated to the aggrieved party. The petitioner ought to have filed an appeal within the period stipulated by

-2- CWP No. 18959 of 2008.

the said provision. It has obviously not done so. Learned counsel, for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was engaged in correspondence with the Central Government regarding the efficacy of the permission granted in its favour under the Aravali notification. This correspondence, according to the counsel, constitutes a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in the filing of an appeal against the order of withdrawal. We do not for the present propose to express any opinion about the correctness of that argument. All that we need say is that if the petitioner prefers an appeal under Section 28 of the Act, it shall also be entitled to prefer an application for condonation of delay in filing of the said appeal in terms of proviso to Section 28(1) of the Act. Since the power to condone the delay is exercisable by the appellate authority, we do not in these proceedings propose to clutch at the jurisdiction of the appellate authority and pre-judge the issue. All that what would say is that if an application seeking condonation of delay is filed in terms of the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Act, the Appellate Authority is expected to bestow its consideration to the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. With the above observations and reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate redress before the appellate authority, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. No costs.

(T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Jasbir Singh) Judge December 11, 2008 Malik