9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CPCB) to determine the pollution and hazardous aspects of this industry. On 13th March, 1996 this Court directed the CPCB to issue notice to the hot mix plants located in Delhi as to why they be not relocated. The Board issued notices to the Hot Mix Plants and after considering the replies/objections filed by them, the Expert Committee of the Board arrived at the following conclusion: The process emissions from Hot Mix Plants contain particulate matter and sulphur dioxide besides Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons most of which are proven carcinogens. therefore, the Expert Committee of CPCB has categorised Hot Mix Plants as hazardous industry ('Ha' category). As per Master Plan 2001, all hazardous/noxious industries should be shifted out of the U.T. Delhi. 2. Basing on the aforesaid report, this Court on 10th October, 1996 inter-alia directed the 43 hot mix plants to stop functioning and operating in the city of Delhi w.e.f. February 28, 1997. The directions are contained in paragraph 4 of the order. For the purpose of disposal of this petition direction Nos. 1, 2 and 8 are relevant which reads thus: (1) The above listed 43 Hot Mix Plants cannot be permitted to operate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... important bearing for proper adjudication of the case at hand and it is extracted in extenso. DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT. GOVT. OF DELHI 4TH FLOOR, ISBT BLDG. KASHMERE GATE, DELHI-6. No.F.12/G(041)/PCC III/96/790-805 Date: 16/5/97 Sub: Directions under Section 31(A) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Whereas the Central Pollution Board exercises the powers and performs the functions under the Air (Prevention Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as a State Board for Union Territories; Whereas the Central Pollution Control Board has delegated all its powers functions under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 in respect of Union Territory of Deli to a committee known as Delhi Pollution Control Committee vide notification No. S.O. 1989E) dated 15.3.1991; Whereas, the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi is declared as an air pollution control area under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Air (Prevention Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 vide notification No. GSR 106(E) dated 20.2.1987; Whereas, you M/s. Ashok Kumar Chhabra Constructions alias Sh. Ashok Kumar Chhabra civil Engineers and Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect. (D.S. NEGI) CHAIRMAN, (DPCC) 5. In consequence of order dated 16th May, 1997 the unit of the respondent was also sealed by the order dated 10th December, 1997. The order dated 16th May 1997 and 10th December, 1997 were challenged by the respondent before the Appellate Authority under Section 31 of the Act. The same was dismissed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India and the Appellate Authority, Ministry of Environment and Forests by its order dated 20th March, 1998. The relevant portion reads: The appeals ere heard on 10.3.98. The arguments advanced by the parties were heard at length and the material placed on record was duly considered. It emerges that the hot mix plants as a category of industry/activity was categorised as an activity falling in 'H' category as per the Master Plan of Delhi (MPD) 2001 and is to be relocated outside of NCT of Delhi with effect from 1.3.1997. The Supreme Court has made no exception in its order dated 10.10.1996 and directed the hot mix plants closed/functioning and operating in the city of Delhi falling in NCT to be closed and relocated/shifted to any other industrial estate in NCR. There is no evidence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of its order as under: It is brought to our notice that M/s. Ashok Chhabra Co. has filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi which is pending for hearing since 1998. Since the question of desirability of not having Hot Mix Plants in Delhi City was in decision of this Court and orders have been passed therein, we do no known under what circumstances, the High Court has entertained the Writ Petition. Be that as it may, since the said writ petition is pending before the High Court, the Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi is requested to see that the writ petition in question is heard and disposed of within two months from today. The order passed by it be communicated to this Court. Put up this after two months. It is also further alleged that taking advantage of pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, the said Company is continuing to operate its Hot Mix Plants. In view of earlier orders of this Court, we direct that the said Hot Mix Plants must be closed down, if operating and appropriate steps must be taken by the Delhi Pollution Control Board (DPCB) with necessary help from the Delhi Police. 9. The respondent also filed C.W.No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 9th September, 1999. He also filed a detailed reply on 6th March, 2000 to the show cause notice. In paragraph 4 of the reply he denied that his unit was operation when the DPCC carried out surprise inspection of the plant on 27/28th September, 1999. He stated that the plant was operating in the earlier periods pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court passed from time to time. He also submits that he has not been in contempt of any order of this Court in the matter of operating the plant. He also found fault with this Court in passing the orders dated 9th September, 1999 and 25th November, 1999 without the complete facts being brought to the notice of this Court. 14. A cursory reading of paragraph 4 shows that he has not made any specific denial with regard to the functioning of the plant. At the same time his plea that the plant was operating in earlier periods pursuant to the order of the High Court has been falsified by various orders of the High Court, as noticed above. In paragraph 7 of the reply he has categorically stated that he has not committed any contempt of the order of this Court. The reply in paragraph 7 is interesting. It reads: I respectf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing night time from 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. as permission from Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) was not given to the petitioner due to heavy flow of the traffic on roads during day time. 17. The respondent-condemner, in his own admission, has continued the functioning of the plant which is treated to be as hazardous and noxious industry in total disregard and consistent defiance of the orders passed by this Court which impunity. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior Counsel's contention, that in the order of 10th October, 1996 the unit of the contemner is excluded inasmuch as the said order covered only 43 hot mix plants and as such the respondent has not committed any contempt, deserves out-right rejection. Firstly, the order dated 10th October, 1996 is of general direction ordering the closer of all industries (HMP) which are hazardous and noxious industries. As already noticed, the plant of the respondent is one of such units, which has been categorized as hazardous and noxious industry by Expert Committee. Secondly, this Court by the order dated 5th December, 1997 included the hot mix plant of the contemner and directed the State government concerned to make available the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er an unconditional and unqualified apology to this Hon'ble Court for any of my actions which might be deemed to be in contempt of the orders of this Hon'ble Court and pray that the said apology be accepted. I state that I hold this Hon'ble Court in highest esteem and have no intention whatsoever to be in breach of any order passed by this Hon'ble Court. I most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to recall the notice to show cause as to why proceedings for alleged contempt of Court issued to me and the said proceeding be dropped.' 22. The conduct of the contemner, as recited above, is beyond condonable limit. It is now well-settled principle that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilt of the contemner. At the same time, the apology must be sought at the earliest opportunity. The apology tendered by the respondent is at a belated stage to escape punishment of the Court. Furthermore, as already noticed, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit he has stated that he has not committed any contempt and defended his action. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit, as quoted above, though it is stated that he tenders unconditional apology, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
