Rishiraj Aluminium Private Limited vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.

Facts

The Petitioner, Rishiraj Aluminium Private Limited, sought the setting aside of a sealing order dated March 7, 2023, issued by the SDM against its factory premises. Initially, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) agreed to conditional revocation of the sealing on March 24, 2023, but this was revoked on March 27, 2023, due to ownership disputes and irregularities. The Petitioner stated its intention to wind up business, clear outstanding payments, and file GST returns, not to resume operations. The DPCC filed an affidavit confirming the Petitioner deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- as environmental compensation and indicated that de-sealing orders could be passed by the SDM upon the Petitioner's undertaking to remove plant and machinery and cease activities. Intervenor applicants, including directors and shareholders, were impleaded but later withdrew their application after a settlement agreement with the Petitioner.

Held

The Court permitted the Petitioner to remove its plant and machinery, directing the concerned SDM to de-seal the premises within two weeks. This decision was based on the Petitioner having paid the environmental compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Court noted that the Petitioner had provided an undertaking to remove its plant and machinery and for the closure of its activities from the premises. The impleadment application by intervenors was dismissed as withdrawn due to a settlement agreement reached between the Petitioner and the intervenors. The Court found no further orders were required in the petition challenging the sealing of the property. The petition and all pending applications were disposed of on these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the sealing order dated March 7, 2023, of the Petitioner's factory premises should be set aside, considering the Petitioner's intention to wind up business and clear dues. The Petitioner argued for de-sealing to facilitate the removal of its plant and machinery and to file pending GST returns. The Revenue/State's position, as indicated by the DPCC's affidavit, was that de-sealing could be permitted by the SDM upon the Petitioner providing an undertaking to dismantle and remove all plant and machinery and cease operations from the premises. The DPCC also noted ownership disputes. The intervenors, initially seeking impleadment, later settled with the Petitioner. The core issue revolved around the conditions for de-sealing and the Petitioner's compliance with environmental norms and financial obligations.