Sr. No.06
                                                                 Supplementary-1



              HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                         AT JAMMU

                                               WP(C) No.1083/2020
                                               CM No.2971 & 2972 of 2020

M/s J.K. Polethene                                              ...Petitioner(s)
                           Through:- Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate

                                       V/s
Union territory of J&K and others                             ...Respondent(s)
                           Through:-
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

CM No.2792/2020 This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time for affixing requisite court fee and affidavits.

For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and time for affixing requisite court fee and affidavits is extended by six weeks. WP(C) 1083/2020

1. The petitioner in this petition assails the validity of order No.64-SPCB of 2019 dated 12.09.2019 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner-unit has been directed to be closed and sealed. The impugned order is assailed primarily on the ground that the same has been issued by respondent No.3 in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that, the petitioner was never given an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order.

2. The petitioner also contends that since it only carries the manufacturing of polythene bags above fifty microns and, therefore, no clearance from the pollution control board is required. 2 WP(C) No.1083/2020

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that the impugned order is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by this Court. In terms of SRO 45 dated 27.02.2017, polythene carry bags and allied products of less than 50 microns thickness are banned in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and, therefore, no body or unit can indulge in manufacturing thereof.

4. The petitioner was found to manufacture polythene carry bags and allied products of less than fifty microns that too without there being any consent to establish and consent to operate from respondent No.3. The petitioner was served with repeated notices but it failed to show cause as to why legal action for violation of Section 25 and 21 of the Water (prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 should not be taken. Otherwise also, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, service of prior notice on the petitioner before passing the impugned order would have been a useless formality.

5. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate by reference to any document that it has obtained consent to establish or consent to operate qua its registered manufacturing activities from respondent No.3.

6. From the permission granted by the District Industries Centre, Jammu vide DIC-J/2697-Ind/11478-80 dated 23.03.2017, it is evident that the petitioner was permitted manufacturing of polythene carry bags (above 50 microns in thickness) subject to petitioner's furnishing consent to operate from the J&K Pollution Control Board. Admittedly, so far, the petitioner has not been issued consent to operate by respondent No.3. The petitioner without obtaining requisite clearance from respondent No.3 indulged in the 3 WP(C) No.1083/2020 activity of manufacturing of polythene carry bags and, therefore, rightly entailed the action impugned.

7. For the foregoing reasons, challenge of the petitioner to the order impugned fails. However, it shall remain open to the petitioner to apply to respondent No.3 seeking requisite clearance for running its activity of manufacturing of polythene carry bags (above 50 microns in thickness). Needless to say that in case the petitioner has already applied or applies hereinafter, respondent No.3 shall consider the case of the petitioner on its merits and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of such request of the petitioner.

8. The the writ petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 01.07.2020 Vinod.

Whether the order is speaking :Yes/No Whether the order is reportable :Yes/No VINOD KUMAR 2020.07.01 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document