HC stays TNPCB order for closure of Midas Golden Distilleries

Chennai, Aug 31 (UNI) Madras High Court today stayed an order of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), closing Midas Golden Distilleries Private Limited, engaged in manufacturing Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and stopping electricity supply to it.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Mr Justice K Chandru granted the interim stay while directing the TNPCB to file its counter within two weeks, and adjourned to September 14, further hearing on the petition filed by Midas Golden Distilleries, Padappai in Kanchipuram District, seeking to quash the TNPCB order dated August 24, 2006, closing the factory and stopping power supply.

The order was issued under section 33-A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

It was an illegal order which had no legs to stand, It was the best example to indicate how the authority could abuse the provisions of the Act. Every tenet of the legal provisions has been violated by the TNPCB, the petitioner contended.

According to petitioner, the TNPCB issued consent order on May 6, 2003 for production and running the factory by discharging the sewerage and treating the effluents. The consent order was renewed periodically. TNPCB has been prompted by extraneous consideration and external dictation while dealing with the petitioner.

The board was making periodical inspection of the unit and all the lab analysis and the report always indicated a remark less than minimum detection limit. While so, the petitioner was issued with a showcause notice dated July 17, 2006 by TNPCB based on an inspection on July 13, 2006. Necessary explanations were submitted to TNPCB on July 27. However, by the August 24 order, the TNPCB ordered the closure of the unit and stoppage of power supply, the petitioner said.

Futher no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and the explanation given were not at all considered. This indicated non application of mind and the casual manner of dealing with the issue by the persons, who passed the order apart from the gross violation of natural justice, the petitioner contended.

Since TNPCB has passed the order on extraneous consideration and for untenable reasons, which are not proper, could be defended by law by them. On the basis of balance of inconvenience, a suitable compensation has to be given by the TNPCB to the petitioner for the mischief committed by them.

The petitioner sought a compensation of Rs three lakh per day from the date of closure order.

UNI XR ROY SB GC2025