Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: paragon polymer in M/S Ratna Enterprises vs Karnataka State Pollution Control ... on 4 July, 2024Matching Fragments
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31890-DB c/w WP Nos. 9941/2021, 19984/2023 20288/2023, 20351/2023, 20393/2023, 20573/2023, 5224/2024 & 5674/2024 4.2. The first decision which was relied on by the petitioners was in M/s. Paragon Polymers Products Private Limited Vs. the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board which was Writ Petition No.5847 of 2020 and cognate petitions decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 16.03.2020. In that, the challenge was to similar notices issued by the State Pollution Control Board asking to pay the Interim Environmental Compensation or Environmental Compensation based on the orders of the NGT in Original Application No.1038 of 2018. The demand was set aside by the Court on the ground that the Board failed to justify the demand with reference to any statutory provision. The State Pollution Control Board was, however, permitted to take action in accordance with law, if the petitioner-unit was found to have committed any violation of the provisions of the Air Act or the Water Act. 4.3 Another decision relied on was in Suhas S. Kulkarni Vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board in Writ Petition No.22831 of 2021 decided on 08.11.2022 in which, notice issued under Section 33A of the Water Act was challenged. The said petition was dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy available under Section 33B of the Water Act.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31890-DB c/w WP Nos. 9941/2021, 19984/2023 20288/2023, 20351/2023, 20393/2023, 20573/2023, 5224/2024 & 5674/2024
5. Having considered the grounds raised in the memorandum of respective petitions, upon hearing learned counsels for the parties and further noticing the orders passed in M/s. Paragon Polymers Products (supra), the Court is of the view that since the petitioners' case inter alia is that they were not heard before passing the respective impugned Demand Notices and that they had no opportunity to put forward their respective case, interests of justice would be subserved if the order is passed to remit back the cases.