R.A. Goel v. Union of India and Others AIR 2000 P& H 320

The Haryana Chamber of Commerce and Industry through its Chairman made a complaint to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana Departments of Industries and Environment complaining against the non-compliance of the Government policy by the Board. The grievance made therein, was, even thought he Government had decided that no NOC would be required to be obtained by a small scale industrial unit except by 17 categories of highly polluting industries identified by the Government of India and 19 categories of highly polluting industries identified by the Board and despite an earlier decision of the Board to the same effect, the regional offices of the Board were issuing notices to various small scale industrial units to obtain consent under the Water Act and under S.21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. This is inspite of those units neither falling in the 17 types of highly polluting industries nor in the 19 types of polluting industries as identified by the Board.

The Chamber requested the State Government to issue instructions to the Board to implement the Government orders and the Government industrial policy and save the small scale industrial units from harassment being caused by this whimsical action of the Board and a copy of this complaint was forwarded to the Board for its comments. To this the Member Secretary of the Board informed the State Government that they had no right to issue such administrative orders as no such orders could be issued in infringement of the Water Act and the Air Act and also the Environment Protection Act. Consequently recommendation was sent by Commissioner of Industries for supersession of Board.

Against this recommendation, for supersession of the board, this case came up fore hearing.

The court held that a detailed perusal of the files of the two departments of the Government leaves no room for doubt that the action of the State Government in superseding the Board was not actuated by any mala fide intentions but was governed purely by the interest of the State for promoting its industrial growth.

Thus the order of supersession passed by the State Government would not be illegal. It was with a view to attract small scale industries and to give impetus to them that the Government at its highest level had decided not to ask for NOCs from them except from the 36 highly polluting industries identified by the Government of India and the Board. The conduct of the Board in insisting for such NOCs from all the industries was against Government policy, which was bound to adversely affect industrial growth in the State. This was leading to discontent in the industry and numerous complaints against the Board were being received by the Government. The Government was, thus, justified in forming an opinion that circumstances existed which necessitated supersession of the Board.

The State Government on examination of the material available with it came to the conclusion that circumstances existed which render it necessary in public interest to supersede the Board, the court observed, it is not necessary to issue any show cause notice either to the Board or to any member thereof.

The Parliament has by necessary implication excluded the principles of natural justice when the Board is to be superseded in public interest for reasons.

As regards the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner against respondent No. 5- Smt. Sushma Swaraj, the then Union Minister of Information and Broadcasting, the court held that, to say the least, are wholly baseless and misconceived.