The petitioners are factory producing two chemicals which effluents needed to be treated before discharging in the water. The petitioner partially treated the chemicals violating the law and the respondent issued notice for closure. The Court considered the notice is not disproportionate nor illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The A.P. High court issued an order on 23rd April, 1996 for judicial review of a notice in which the Court stated that the notice issued by the pollution board for closure of industry for violating the water (pollution prevention and control) Act by partially treating effluents produced during production of chemicals and discharging the chemical waste in water causing pollution is not disproportionate nor illegal. This was stated in the case of M/S. Ambuga Petrochemicals Ltd. vs A. P. Pollution Control Board (AIR 1997 AP 41). This case was presided by Honorable Mr. Justice B. S. Reddy
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner is an industry which produces two Phthalic Anhydride (PA) and Fumaric Act (FA). There are no effluents produced during production of Phthalic Anhydride (PA) and certain effluents are treated during the production of Fumaric Act. These effluents needed to be treated partially in effluent treatment plant (ETP). As the industry is a member of Patancheru Envirotech Limited (PETL), the partially treated effluents are transported to the PETL and fully treated and discharged there. The petitioner industry became sick and reduced producing FA and the effluents were reduced and the transportation to PETL was proven costly and it started treating them in ETP and discharged which were mixed in nearby Dhosani Tank causing pollution. The respondent board issued two show cause notices to industry regarding why they are not to be closed in violation sec 33A of the Water Act. The board alleged that the ETP is not fully functional and partially treating the effluents before discharge. Thus, increasing the levels of COD and BOD in period of six months. It issued a notice of closure to the industry. The petitioner filed writ petition for judicial review of the said notice
JUDGEMENT
The Court stated that the board may decide each case depend on the facts and circumstances and the Court can only intervene during only appropriate cases where there is grave disproportionate punishment or malice or contravention to the law. It is not possible to issue guidelines in every matter except when Court was satisfied that the directions were wholly unreasonable or violative of any provisions of the Act. The Court is appellate Authority to each case but the petition was filed for judicial review where the petition is decided not on basis of merits of the case but on technicality of the enquiry involved.
The Court also stated that in the instant case there is no unfairness or mala fide intention attributed to officers of the board. After perusal of the records produced by the Board, the Court came to conclusion the notice issued is not based on any extraneous or irrelevant grounds. So the notice issued is neither illegal nor disproportionate. However the petitioner can comply with standards of the board and can approach the board for restarting the industry. The board should consider the same based on merits. The petition is dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY ATTILI LEELA NAGA JANAKI RAJITHA.