Halcyon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Loharu v. Avtar Singh

-1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 04.12.2019 Halcyon Pharmaceuticals Limited, Loharu, District Bhiwani Petitioner

Versus

Dr. Avtar Singh, Chairman, Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Panchkula Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. N.R. Dahia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the respondent.

**** AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner raising grievance regarding emission of odour, smell and stink by the industries and other establishments including poultry farms and seeking issuance of directions to the State to take necessary steps to prevent air pollution. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Court was informed that Union of India had issued notification dated 15.03.2011 prescribing norms, parameters and standards of the ambient air quality emitted by such industries and poultry farms. In the meantime, Ministry of Environment and Forests issued notification dated 16.11.2009 providing national ambient air quality

-2standards. By an application, certain guidelines were placed on record by the Central Pollution Control Board [hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Board'] and counsel appearing for Haryana State Pollution Control Board [hereinafter referred to as 'the State Board'] submitted that these guidelines were being accepted, in view thereof, the petition was disposed of. The authorities were directed to take action against the Units not maintaining standards laid down in the notification issued by the Central Board. It was further ordered that if the petitioner finds that guidelines were not being followed by the industrial units, then it will be at liberty to file a complaint with the Chairman of the State Board, who shall take action forthwith. The contempt petition was filed pleading violation of directions dated 03.07.2012 of this Court.

The grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of directions of this Court, Poultry Farm is still continuing at its original place. The further grievance raised is that while adopting guidelines of the Central Board, the State Board has made certain modifications to the policy. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Poultry Farm is continuing, as after inspection, it was found that it is fulfilling the criteria. He further defends the modification to the guidelines issued by the Central Board by stating that needful was done considering the ground realities of the State and to make it effectively implemented.

From the pleadings, it is forthcoming that in pursuance to

-3the legal notice given by the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued to the Poultry Farm on 12.11.2013. Thereafter, on 27.11.2013, the Poultry Farm was inspected by the Regional Officer of the State Board and it was found that Unit was not complying with the standing order dated 27.05.2013. It would be pertinent to note that standing order was passed following the guidelines of the Central Board. It was recommended by the officials to the Environmental Department, Haryana to take appropriate action under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. The action was followed by issuing various show cause notices under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as to why the unit should not be closed.

Vide order dated 23.04.2014, on the recommendation, the Government of Haryana issued directions to the Poultry Farm to stop the farming activities and not to replace/add any Birds in future. As the Poultry Farm was not complying with the directions, a complaint under Section 15 and 19 of the Act was filed before the Environment Court, Faridabad. On 10.11.2015, order of closures were issued by the State Government directing the Poultry Farm to dispose of all the existing birds within sixty days. An FIR was lodged against the Poultry Farm as it was disrupting the inspection by the officials.

Aggrieved of the closure order, the Poultry Farm filed an appeal before the National Green Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as

-4- 'the Tribunal'] raising a grievance that guidelines/ standing order was being complied with and the inspection made by the officials was not proper. During the pendency of the appeal, inspections were made by the State Board. The Tribunal vide interim order dated 13.05.2016, directed the Central Board to inspect the Poultry Farm. A joint inspection was carried out by the Central Board and the State Board on 25.05.2016. As per the inspection report, it was found that Poultry Farm was complying with the standing order dated 27.05.2013, as the said guidelines/criteria were not applicable to the Poultry Farms commissioned prior to the issuance of the standing order. The appeal was disposed of on 29.07.2016, directing the Poultry Farm to file fresh application before the State Board, seeking consent to operate.

The Board was directed to deal with the application expeditiously. The State Board rejected the application on 28.09.2016. Against the rejection order, appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on 01.02.2017, allowed the appeal. The Poultry Farm was allowed to run for a period of three months. During the said period, the State Board, had to conduct the inspection to ascertain as to whether deficiencies pointed out in the notice by the Board have been removed or not. The State Board on 18.05.2017, after inspection, gave consent to the Poultry Farm to resume operations.

The directions dated 03.07.2012 of this Court that in case petitioner finds that guidelines are not being followed, a complaint could be made to the State Board, which shall take stern action,

-5were duly complied with in this case. From the facts mentioned above, it is evident that not only show cause notices were issued, even inspections were carried out and closure order was also passed against the Poultry Farm. It is only after the success in the appeal before the Tribunal and the State Board being satisfied with regard to the various compliances that a consent for resuming operations was given.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that consent to operate has wrongly been given to the Poultry Farm, as earlier it was rejected.

The said aspect cannot be gone into the contempt proceedings. It will not be within the ambit of the contempt proceedings to go into the challenge to the order giving consent to operate. Moreso, the Poultry Farm is not impleaded as a party in the contempt petition, it would be against the principles of natural justice to make any adverse observations against the person who is not a party to the litigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contempt Court should restrict itself to the order passed by the Writ Court and should not take into consideration proceedings before the Tribunal.

There is no quibble with the said proposition. The Supreme Court in Er. K. Arumugam Vs. V. Balakrishnan & Ors. 2019 AIR(SC) 818 held that the contempt Court shall restrict itself within the four corners of the order passed which is alleged to be

-6violated.

This itself fortifies the fact that in contempt proceedings, the challenge posed to the order giving consent to operate and grievance against the Tribunal's order cannot be entertained. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jhareswar Prasad Paul Vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly 2002(5) SCC 352. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:-

   

  

   

         

  

            

             

   

  

      


   



  

  

                        





                               


   

 

       !    

                
       "     

  #                



  

    

#   $        "     



    

     

                        
 

  

   

    %         

            

     ! 

   

  

  
  "    

  

    

   

  

  %      !                

 !     

-7-    

 
         



       

                %           

       !



 

             

 "    

  

   

    %    

    

       ! 

         

   

#  

     

      

    

       

  

    

 

     

       

         

    "    

  



$             

          

#                     !

   "   



     

 &    "

    

    

!             



                     &  

   !
  !                          



 

   



    

        

  $        !                     

     

            

 '

(   ) As regard to the grievance that the guidelines issued by the Central Board were adopted by the State of Haryana with certain modifications, the said issue gives fresh cause of action to the

-8petitioner.

No case is made out for wilful disobedience of directions of this Court, rather there is substantial compliance of the directions of this Court, the petition is dismissed.

However, it would be open to the petitioner, to avail remedies in accordance with law against the policy adopted by the State of Haryana by passing standing order dated 27.05.2013. [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE December 04, 2019  $