[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Okhla Industrial Area Cetp Society ... vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Anr on 7 April, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~96
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4534/2026, CM APPL. 22145/2026 & CM APPL.
22146/2026
Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA CETP SOCIETY (REGD)
.....Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given.
versus
DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kush Sharma, Mr. Nishchaya
Nigam and Mr. Raghvendra
Upadhyay (GNCTD)
Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel
Counsel (GNCTD), Ms. Shivpa
Taneja, Ms. Purnima Jain, Mr.
Madhur, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition is for setting aside the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by
respondent no. 1-Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), whereby,
directions have been issued under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to handover the Okhla Common
Effluent Treatment Plant being operated by the petitioner.
2. The impugned order is assailed on the ground that no opportunity of
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
hearing was extended to the petitioner prior to its passing. It is pointed out
that no prior show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner.
3. Notice.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents accept notice. They
seek time to take instructions and file a reply.
5. The Court, however, finds that instead of granting liberty to the
respondent to file a counter affidavit, the petition itself can be disposed of,
keeping in mind the solitary grievance raised by the petitioner relating to the
violation of principles of natural justice.
6. A perusal of the impugned order nowhere indicates that the petitioner
had been granted any opportunity of hearing prior to the impugned action.
Therefore, the impugned order suffers from material illegality going to the
root of the matter. The Supreme Court, in Nisha Devi v. State of H.P.,1 has
held as under:
"5. Trite though it is, we may yet again reiterate that the principle of
audi alteram partem admits of no exception, and demands to be adhered
to in all circumstances. In other words, before arriving at any decision
which has serious implications and consequences to any person, such
person must be heard in his defence. We find that the High Court did not
notice the violation and infraction of this salutary principle of law.
Accordingly, on this short ground, the impugned judgments and orders
require to be set aside, and are so done. The matter is remanded back to
the Divisional Commissioner for taking a fresh decision after giving due
notice to the appellant and affording her an opportunity of being heard.
The Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, shall complete the proceedings
expeditiously, and not later than six months from the date on which a
copy of this order is served on him."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned
order is set aside. Let the respondent to take fresh action after affording an
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
8. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by any subsequent action of the
respondent, it shall be at liberty to take an appropriate recourse in
accordance with law.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 7, 2026/p
(2014) 16 SCC 392
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
