CWP No. 12519 of 2008                             [1]

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH


                                       CWP No. 12519 of 2008

                                       Date of Decision: 20.10.2009



M/s Himalayan Frozen Foods Ltd.                          ..Petitioner


                        Versus


Punjab Pollution Control Board                          ..Respondent



CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER




1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



Present :   Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate,
            for the respondent.

                               *****

T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This petition for a writ of certiorari calls in question the correctness of an order dated 3.7.2008 passed by the Punjab Pollution Control Board whereby the petitioner company was directed to submit a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs valid for a period of one year to ensure regular operation and maintenance of its Effluent Treatment CWP No. 12519 of 2008 [2] Plant for compliance with effluents standards prescribed for the industry in question. The controversy arises in the following backdrop.

The petitioner company has set up a medium scale industrial unit at village Rajgarh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala which is engaged primarily in manufacturing and marketing of processed/frozen foods. The petitioner's case is that the industry set up by it is seasonal in nature and operates only for a period of two or three months in a calendar year. Its further case is that the sister concern of the petitioner company by the name M/s Green Bagh Foods Limited is also engaged in manufacture of Jams and Tomato Ketchup and is located in the same premises but remains operational almost throughout the year. Since both the companies referred to above are required to have an Effluent Treatment Plant in terms of the statutes in force, the petitioner company appears to have set up a Common Effluent Treatment Plant for treating the effluents discharged from their respective units. While the petitioner's case is that Effluent Treatment Plant so installed is functional and maintains standards stipulated for that purpose, the respondent Board disputes that assertion.

According to the respondent Board, the industry set up by the petitioner company was visited by its officers on 01.02.2008 when it was observed that the Effluent Treatment Plant installed by the industry was not in operation and that untreated effluent was being discharged onto the adjacent land for stagnation. The inspection also revealed the presence of untreated effluents in the adjacent land, a sample whereof was also collected by the officer conducting the inspection for analysis. The test reports revealed that the effluents CWP No. 12519 of 2008 [3] discharged by the unit were beyond permissible limit prescribed by the Board. Acting on that basis, the Board appears to have taken the view that the petitioner company was in default of the requirements of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, resulting in the issue of the order impugned in this petition whereby the industry has been directed to submit a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs valid for a period of one year and to maintain and operate the Effluent Treatment Plant and ensure that effluent standards prescribed are not violated. Aggrieved, the petitioner-company has assailed the correctness of the said directions in the present petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and perused the record.

Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for the Board submitted, and in our opinion rightly so, that this petition has with the passage of time become infructuous and the issues raised therein rendered academic. He further submits that the order in question requiring the petitioner's unit to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs for a period of one year, necessarily means that the bank guarantee, if furnished in terms of the said order, would be valid only till 31.07.2009. He further argued that since consent to operate has to be obtained by every industrial unit on an annual basis and an application for such consent has to be filed two months before the expiry of the consent earlier granted, the petitioner company will have to file an application for grant of consent for the year 2010, in which event, the Board would examine the issue and pass a fresh order on the subject in accordance with law. He urged that the petitioner could be directed to CWP No. 12519 of 2008 [4] make such an application within two weeks from today, in which event the competent authority in the Board would pass an appropriate order on the subject within two weeks thereafter. All other issues raised by the petitioner's unit could in that view be left open to be agitated at an appropriate stage, if the occasion to do so arise.

Ms. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner unit had no serious objection to that procedure being followed. She submitted that while the petitioner company is ready and willing to make an application for the grant of consent to operate for the year 2010, the Board ought to dispose of the said request quickly so that the petitioner's working for the remainder of the current year is not affected. She further submitted that the petitioner's unit has installed an Effluent Treatment Plant although the same is common to its sister concern M/s Green Bagh Foods Ltd. and that it would ensure that the said plant is not only functional but also serves the purpose for which it has been installed.

In the circumstances, therefore, it is unnecessary for us to go into the question whether the order passed by Environmental Engineer of the Punjab Pollution Control Board demanding a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lacs suffered from any error of law or procedure. Since the period for which the said guarantee was to be furnished has already expired, the entire issue regarding the validity of that order appears to have become academic. It is also obvious that the unit cannot operate without proper consent from the Board. The request of the petitioner for grant of consent for the year 2009 appears to have been filed after the passing of impugned order and has remained pending CWP No. 12519 of 2008 [5] before the Board ostensibly because of the pendency of the present writ petition. In that view, therefore, any order which the competent authority in the Board may pass on the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of consent to operate should work to the benefit of the unit from the date the order is made not necessarily w.e.f. 01.01.2010.

In fairness to Mr. Patwalia, we must mention that he had no quarrel with that proposition and submitted that if an order granting consent is made the same can be effective for a period of one year from the date it is issued.

In the result, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:-

i) Upon receipt of an application, the competent authority in the Pollution Control Board shall afford to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in the matter and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.

ii) In case the competent authority decides to grant consent to operate conditionally or otherwise, the same shall became operative from the date the order is made and shall continue to remain operative for the period mentioned in the order.

iii) In case the consent is refused, the petitioner's unit shall have the liberty to seek appropriate redress against the refusal in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Forum.

CWP No. 12519 of 2008 [6] All other questions raised by the parties in these proceedings are left open to be determined in appropriate proceedings, if an occasion to do so arises. No costs.

A copy of the order shall be given dasti to Ms. Gandhi under the signature of the Bench Secretary.

(T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE 20.10.2009 'ravinder'