IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1187 of 2018

 M/s Dex Agro Sweetners (Private) Limited
                                      .............Petitioner

                                    Versus

 Uttarakhand Environment Protection & Pollution Control
 Board
                                     .......Respondent

Present:- Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. Shiv Pandey, Advocate for the respondent.

 Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

Admittedly, an inspection of the petitioner's factory was carried out and thereafter a report was submitted to the effect that the petitioner's factory does not have the Effluent Treatment Plant in working condition. Subsequently, the Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board passed an order dated 6.4.2018 under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 directing closure of the petitioner's factory. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court.

2. Although, the order dated 06.04.2018 is appellable under Section 33-B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, but the ground raised by the petitioner before this Court is that sub-rule (3) of Rule 34 of the Rules framed under the Act, provides that before issuing any direction under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, at least 15 days' prior notice shall be given to the person concerned. Admittedly, it has not been done in the present case.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon sub-rule (6) of Rule 34 which provides that in case where the Board is of the opinion that there is likelihood of imminent danger to the environment, this notice may be dispensed with but with the reasons to be recorded in writing for dispensing with such notice. However, in the impugned order no such reason or finding is given, as contemplated under sub-rule (6) of Rule 34 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975.

4. Considering that since the respondent has closed the factory of the petitioner without providing an opportunity of hearing and since Rule 34 has not been complied with and presently the petitioner's factory is lying closed, let a post-decisional hearing be given to the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner shall apprise all relevant facts to the respondent and thereafter the Uttarakhand Environment Protection & Pollution Control Board shall take fresh decision and pass the order afresh under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. In case, the respondent Board comes to the conclusion that the factory is actually polluting the environment, closure order, as contemplated under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, shall be passed. Since the order has to be passed afresh, the Board is directed to consider all the relevant parameters as well as pleas of the petitioner and then pass a speaking and reasoned order.

5. With directions/observations as above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 09.05.2018 Prabodh