Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Gujarat Composite Limited vs A Infrastructure Limited on 30 July, 2021

Author: J.B.Pardiwala

Bench: J.B.Pardiwala, Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

     C/SCA/6371/2020                            ORDER DATED: 30/07/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6371 of 2020

==========================================================
                       GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITED
                                  Versus
                        A INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
. for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
N R MEHTA(7794) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
       and
       HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                            Date : 30/07/2021

                             ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;

"(A) Your Lordship's may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;

(B) Your Lordship's may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, order or direction directing to quash and set aside the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the Additional Secretary, Gujarat Pollution Control Board respondent no.3 and further be pleased to revive the order dated 10.04.2019 passed by Environmental engineer i.e, respondent no.4;

C/SCA/6371/2020 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2021 (C ) Your Lordship's may further be pleased hold and declare that the consent no. AWH-71877 dated 16.07.2015 renewed by the Respondent authority is ex-facie illegal, illogical and without jurisdiction;

(D) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship's may be pleased to direct the respondent authority to suspend the consent renewed vide order dated 16.07.2015 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authority not to renew the same at the instance of the respondent no.1 and 2 herein;

(E) Any other and further relief that may deem fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;"

2. Mr. Vimal Purohit, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant requested this Court to permit him to amend the petition by allowing the draft amendment. In this regard, we may look into the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 10.03.2021. The same reads thus;

"Heard Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.G. Patra, assisted by Mr. Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 and Mr. N.R. Mehta, learned advocate for respondent no.3.

The draft amendment dated 08.03.2021 is not pressed by Mr. Purohit, learned advocate for the petitioner, however, Mr. Purohit seeks permission to file additional affidavit. It is open for the petitioner to file additional affidavit. At the request of Mr. Vimal Purohit, following party is permitted to be added as party respondent no.5.

C/SCA/6371/2020 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2021 Additional Chief Secretary, Environment and Forest Department Having its office at New Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar Notice to the newly added respondent returnable on 06.04.2021."

3. Thus, it appears that the draft amendment, as prayed for, was not pressed by the learned counsel. However, the learned counsel was permitted to file additional affidavit. We fail to understand that if any order is to be challenged, then how could it be challenged by filing an additional affidavit and how could there be any prayer in the additional affidavit.

4. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the writ applicant should go before the National Green Tribunal under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

5. With the aforesaid, we dispose of this writ application. We clarify that we have otherwise not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

(J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) Vahid Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Aug 01 00:23:08 IST 2021