M/S. Shogun Organics Ltd. v. Union Of India, Through The Secretary And ORS.

1/3 pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3156 OF 2018 M/s. Shogun Organics Ltd.

.. Petitioner Vs.

Union of India and ors.

.. Respondents Mr. Ajay Panicker with Rashi Agarwal I/by Ajay Law Associates for petitioner.

Mr. Parag Vyas a/w Mr. A. R. Varma for respondent No.1 - UOI. Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for respondent No.2 - State. Ms. Sharmila U. Deshmukh for respondent No.3. CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ. & N. M. JAMDAR, J.

JUNE 03, 2019.

P.C.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The case of the writ petitioner is that since October 2018 it was manufacturing and selling insecticides and on account

2/3 of a policy decision taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forest in the year 2012 it voluntarily applied for environmental clearance. Further pleading is that the petitioner submitted the Environment Impact Assessment Report in the year 2014. It received a letter intimating the date when public hearing was intended to be held. It is pleaded that being a factory within the industrial zone, petitioner's case for grant of environmental clearance had to be considered sans a public hearing. It is further pleaded that the Ministry of Environment intimated petitioner deficiencies in the compliance report. It is pleaded that representation there against was made. Further pleading is that the petitioner has been prohibited from continuing with the manufacturing activity.

3.

Prayer made is to quash the direction stopping the petitioner from continuing with manufacturing activity. Second prayer made is to direct the first respondent to decide petitioner's application for grant of environmental clearance. 4.

On 23 January 2018, the Impact Assessment Division of the Ministry of Environment informed the petitioner that approval, as per para 10 of the letter, was granted.

3/3 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is taking steps to comply with paragraph 10 of the letter dated 23 January 2018. Meaning thereby, the petition has been rendered infructuous.

6.

So declaring and closing the proceedings in the writ petition, we simply observe that if the petitioner has any grievance concerning the letter dated 23 January 2018 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Impact Assessment Division) the petitioner can avail remedy as per law. N. M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE