Kamlesh Kumar Sindhwani vs. Delhi Pollution Control Committee And Anr

Facts

The Petitioner, Kamlesh Kumar Sindhwani, is the owner of an industrial unit in Bawana Industrial Area, New Delhi, which was leased to Respondent No. 2, Mr. Arun Kumar Jain, for industrial use. The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) sealed the premises and imposed an Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) of INR 47,00,000/- on the Petitioner's unit, M/s Jeans Dyeing & Washing Unit, for operating without a valid Consent to Establish/Operate and for alleged polluting activities. This action followed an inspection on August 23, 2019, in compliance with a National Green Tribunal order. The Petitioner contends he was unaware of the tenant's violations and that no prior hearing was granted. The DPCC's impugned order dated February 20, 2023, confirmed the EDC. The Petitioner sought de-sealing of the property and quashing of the EDC.

Held

The Court held that the DPCC did not have the power to seal the premises under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, citing precedents in Sunita Aggarwal v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Anr. and Gopi Nath Private Limited v. Department of Environment, GNCTD. Sealing an industrial unit should only result in discontinuing the objectionable activity, not preventing non-polluting uses of the premises. The Petitioner's ownership of the property was established through title documents. The Court noted that the tenant's alleged polluting activities led to the landlord being deprived of the use and enjoyment of the premises. The Court directed DPCC to de-seal the premises within one week and hand over possession to the Petitioner. Electricity, water, and other amenities are to be restored, subject to clearance of outstanding dues. DPCC is at liberty to proceed against the tenant, Mr. Arun Kumar Jain, for recovery of the EDC.

Key Issues

1. Whether the DPCC had the power to seal the industrial unit under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and if the sealing action was violative of the principles of natural justice due to lack of prior hearing for the Petitioner? (Section 20 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974). 2. Whether the EDC amount imposed on the Petitioner's unit was justified, considering the Petitioner's alleged lack of knowledge of the tenant's violations and the procedural irregularities in the imposition of the EDC and sealing of the premises? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, does not empower DPCC to seal an industrial unit, citing the High Court's decision in Sunita Aggarwal v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Anr. They further contended that no opportunity of hearing was provided before sealing and imposing EDC, and the show cause notice was issued post-action. The Petitioner also claimed the impugned decision failed to consider the Rent Agreement and GST Certificate of the tenant. Respondents' arguments: DPCC questioned the authenticity of the Rent Agreement due to discrepancies in dates and its unregistered/un-notarized status. They emphasized that sealing was a consequence of observed deficiencies and suggested the tenant should undertake to pay the EDC for de-sealing. DPCC also noted that the tenant had represented himself as the owner when applying for Consent to Establish. Respondent No. 2 (tenant) admitted to carrying out business and claimed to have a valid Consent to Establish, asserting the sealing was done without a hearing and that his machinery was subsequently stolen.