Delhi High Court - Orders
Vs Eco Power Private Limited vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Ors on 5 September, 2023
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8009/2023 & CM APPL. 30836/2023
VS ECO POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, Advocate.
versus
DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL
COMMITTEE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate for R-
1/DPCC.
Dr. Abhishek Atrey & Mr.
Vaibhav Kandpal, Advocate for R-
2/CAQM.
Mr. Akhil Hasija & Mr. Pankaj
Tandon, Advocates for R-3/BSES.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 05.09.2023
1. The petitioner seeks an order directing respondent No. 3 - BSES Rajdhani Power Limited ["BSES"] to restore the electricity connection to the unit of the petitioner located at B-53, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110064. According to the petitioner, the electricity was disconnected pursuant to an order dated 12.10.2022 issued by respondent No. 2 - Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas ["CAQM"] by which the petitioner was directed to close down industrial operations and activities in the aforesaid premises.
W.P.(C) 8009/2023 Page 1 of 3This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:45:38
2. Mr. Akhil Hasija, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 - BSES, states that the electricity connection was disconnected only on account of a direction from CAQM pursuant to the aforesaid order.
3. Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to a subsequent order dated 07.03.2023 entitled "Review of Closure direction No. 354/IP, dated 12.10.2022". It is stated therein that closure directions were issued by CAQM to the petitioner whereafter CAQM sought comments of respondent No.1 - Delhi Pollution Control Committee ["DPCC"]. DPCC thereafter informed CAQM that consent to operate and authorisation for handling hazardous waste had not been issued to the petitioner owing to orders passed by the National Green Tribunal.
4. The order of CAQM dated 07.03.2023 thereafter records as follows:
"4. The DPCC further informed that while the industrial unit is majorly water polluting, it also has some air pollution potential, for which adequate control measures are in place in the industrial unit and there are no concerns on air pollution from the activities in the unit.
5. The Commission, based on the status submitted by DPCC has observed that due measures are in place in as far as prevention of air pollution from the unit is concerned and that the CTO to the unit is pending purely on account of water pollution related matters.
6. In view of the above and the brief to the Commission under the provisions of the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021, the subject closure direction issued by the Commission may not be pursued further, only from the stand point of air pollution.
7. Further appropriate action however may be taken by DPCC towards the issue of grant of CTO, authorization for handling hazardous waste and also imposition and realisation of suitable Environmental Compensation charges from the industrial unit etc."
5. It is the contention of Mr. Bhushan that the electricity connection W.P.(C) 8009/2023 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:45:38 having been disconnected only on account of directions of CAQM dated 12.10.2022 which have been reviewed by subsequent directions dated 07.03.2023, the petitioner is entitled to restoration of the connection. However, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 - CAQM, states that the aforesaid order dated 07.03.2023 does not constitute a withdrawal of the closure order as CAQM cannot direct reopening of a unit if there is any other legal non-compliance.
6. Dr. Atrey is directed to place on record a written submission clearly delineating the source of statutory power claimed by CAQM in this regard. This direction is passed in view of the contention that despite finding that no further action is required to be taken pursuant to the closure order from the stand point of air pollution, CAQM continues to have jurisdiction to enforce the closure order due to non-compliance with other regulatory provisions.
7. Written submission be filed by CAQM within two weeks from today. DPCC is also directed to place its counter affidavit on record within one week from today.
8. List on 21.11.2023.
PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 'pv'/ W.P.(C) 8009/2023 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:45:38