Oral Order

Sunita Agarwal, CJ.

1. The present petition, presented today in the registry of the High Court, has been summoned and taken up after midday recess on an urgent oral mentioning by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Soparkar with Mr. Devang Nanavati, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Mr. Rohan Lavkumar, Mr. Aaditya Dave, Ms. Bhanvi Juvekar and Mr. Ashish Prasad, learned Counsels for the petitioner, Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate assisted by Ms. Manvi Damle, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and perused the record.

3. The present petition is directed against a closure order /closure direction dated 03.02.2026 issued by the respondent no.1 - Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) with the reasoning given therein, as under :-

          "CLOSURE DIRECTIONS UNDER SECTION 33-A OF THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT-1974 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE "WATER ACT") AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME.

          WHEREAS M/s. Piramal Pharma Limited (PPL) is engaged in manufacturing of Organic chemicals including halogenated hydrocarbons at Plot No.: D-2/11/A/I, GIDC Dahej, Ta: Vagra, Dist.: Bharuch.

          AND WHEREAS, Gujarat Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and under Rule 6 of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 framed under Section 6 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 has granted Consolidated Consents and Authorization (CC&A) vide order no. 148965 valid up to 17/07/2030 for manufacturing of products with condition mentioned therein.

          AND WHEREAS, Tanker No. GJ 27 TG 6676 was spotted at Vayna village, Ta. Kalol, Dist.: Gandhinagar at Night of 31/01/2026 by local villagers for surreptitiously discharge of chemical at Water Canal Nr. Vayna Village, Ta. Kalol, Dist.: Gandhinagar.

          AND WHEREAS, Technical Surveillance of the Board found that Tanker No. GJ 27 TG 6676 is involved was used in transportation of Spent HCL from M/s Piramal Pharma Ltd., Dahej GIDC, Dist. Bharuch., on 30/01/2026 vide manifest No.: 3229195 destined for M/s.Shree Ramnath ChemTAL: Chotila (Bamanbore), DIST: Surendranagar,

          AND WHEREAS, Same tanker got de-routed & found disposing Spent HCL into Water Canal of Vayna Village on 31/01/2026 night @2:20 AM spotted by local villagers and tanker is escaped while people try to catch the tanker at site.

          AND WHEREAS in this context your industry was inspected on dated 02/02/2026 under Section-23 of the Water Act by authorized officers of the Board.

          AND WHEREAS during the said inspection, the unit was found in operation and following non-compliances were observed;

          1) Your industry has been inspected w.r.to Spent HCL sent from your unit through Tanker no. GJ 27 TG 6676 on 30/01/2026.

          2) As per the records Verified from your unit, tanker no. GJ 27 TG 6676 entered the premises of Mis. Piramal Pharna Limited on 29/01/2026 at 7:15 AM to load spent HCL. After loading spent HCL, the said tanker left the premises at 11:05 AM on 30/01/2026, headed for M/s. Shree Ramnath Chem, Plot No. 422, near RR Chem, Bamanbore Industrial Estate, Taluka-Chotila, Dist. Surendranagar.

          3) As per the measured distance on Google Map, the expected travel time from premises of M/s. Piramal Pharma Limited, GIDC Dahej to M/s. Shree Ramnath Chem, Bamanbore, Surendranagar is approx 5-6 hours; however, the manifest shows it arrived at M/s. Shree Ramnath Chem on 31/01/2026 at 5:39 AM (duration of more than 18 hours). Also regarding the delay, Mis. Piramal Pharma Limited has not intimated to GPCB.

          4) Technical Surveillance also reveal that the said tanker has detected at Village: Vayna, Ta. Kaiol, Dist: Gandhinagar. All these clearly indicates that spent HCL sent from unit M/s. Piramal Pharma Ltd., Dahej GIDC, Dist. Bharuch has been surreptitiously disposed into Water Canal at Vayna Village through this tanker instead of sending to M/s. Shree Ramnath Chem, Banmanbore Industrial Estate, Surendranagar.

          5) The location of illegal discharged chemicals into a canal of Vayana village, Ta. Kalol, Dist: Gandhinagar is significantly off-route and does not lie between Dahej and Bamanbore, Surendranagar.

          6) Tanker No. GJ 27 TG 6676 is engaged in the illegal disposal of spent HCL on 31/01/2026, sent from your unit.

          7) And whereas, under principle of "Extended Producer Responsibility" it is absolute responsibility of the generator of the waste to ensure its environmentally sound disposal/reuse of the waste. You have failed to ensure the same and hazardous waste generated from your unit has been disposed in the environment causing pollution.

          AND WHEREAS looking to the non-compliances observed during the said inspection, it is inferred that you have violated provisions of the Water Act-1974 and CC&A conditions AND WHEREAS, three day notice served at site as an opportunity of being heard in adherence to "the principles of natural justice" before initiating stringent action which was received by the representative of the industry/occupier & agreed to the same through counter sign on that document.

          AND WHEREAS, Disposal of Spent HCL into the Water Body is a grave violation and causing pollution & serious damage to the environment. Hence considering the nature of violation, it is expedient to take immediate action and response to the opportunity of being heard is not awaited in the interest of environment and following directions are passed.

          UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I, Dr. S. N. Agravat, Unit Head-Bharuch, Gujarat Pollution Control Board as directed, issue the directions under section 33 (A) of the Water Act as under

          1. To prohibit you from the above said manufacturing activity with immediate effect

          2. To prohibit you from the above said manufacturing activity with effect from immediate effect

          3. To close the operation of your industrial plant/activity on the above-mentioned premises with effect from immediate effect.

          4. To prohibit any kind of manufacturing activities through Captive Power Plant and/or D. G. Sets with effect from immediate effect.

          5. To direct the concerned authority to stop supply of electricity (except single phase) and water with effect from immediate effect.

          6. Submit Bank Guarantee (BG) of Rs. 15,00,000/- valid for one year duration as per BG policy of the Board.

          FAILURE to comply with the directions herein above shall render you liable to the levy of further monetary penalties under the provisions of the relevant statutes, specifically Section 41A of the Water Act, which prescribe enforceable penalties for non-compliance.

          If you are aggrieved by aforesaid directions, you may file an appeal under section 33B(c) of the Water Act, 1974 to the National Green Tribunal established under section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

           This order is issued after approval of competent authority.

          Note: If it is necessary to complete the safety related work or to close down industrial activity safely in order to avoid any further pollution or safety hazard (accident), unit shall have to take proper preventive measures by bringing work in process material to stable condition and then stop plant within maximum 48 hours. Officers of DGVCL are requested to allow time for shut down process accordingly."

4. Challenging the closure order, Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the observations made in the impugned order that the tanker got de-routed and found disposing spent HCL into water canal of Vayana village on 31.01.2026 at about 2:20 AM (during night time) spotted by local villagers and the tanker escaped while people tried to catch the tanker at site, are all absolutely false, concocted and baseless. It is sought to be submitted that the tanker was being tracked through GPS on the GPCB portal showing the real time data of the movement of the vehicle / tanker.

5. It is sought to be demonstrated before us that the tanker was stationary between 01:45 AM to 03:12 AM on 31.01.2026 at Bagodara, which is the place falling on the prescribed route and is 80 kms away from village Vayana of Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar. The tanker started moving at about 3:12 AM on 31.01.2006 as per the GPS tracking data at the GPCB portal, which itself indicates that it was stationary at one place and was never found to have moved towards the village Vayana, where it was allegedly located by the locals. It is vehemently argued that the GPS of the tanker was activated through out and the period during which it was stationary at Bagodara was for the reason that the driver of the tanker was resting.

6. It is, thus, contended that there is a fundamental error in the reasoning given by the GPCB for taking such stringent action against the petitioner directing closure of their manufacturing unit when the petitioner is in a position to provide the correct and categorical explanation to the allegations made therein.

7. It is vehemently argued that though a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.02.2026 giving 3 days' time to file their response, but the order impugned of closure direction under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'1974') has been passed on the very next day, with the wrong reasoning illegally that in view of the nature of violation, it is expedient to take immediate action.

8. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the Rule 34(c) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rule, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rule' 1975) framed under the Act' 1974 to submit that as per the procedure prescribed therein for issuance of direction under Section 33A of the Act' 1974, at least 15 days time from the date of service of notice was required to be given to the noticee to submit its objection, to the issue of the proposed direction. The contention is that the procedure under sub-rule (6) of Rule 34 of the Rules' 1975 can be invoked only in case the GPCB is of the view that there is likelihood of a grave injury to the environment and it is expedient not to provide an opportunity to file objections against the proposed direction. Even in that case, reasons are required to be recorded in writing disclosing why such directions are issued without providing an opportunity.

9. It is, thus, contended that both on the factual aspect that, the order suffers from fundamental error being based on wrong facts, as well as on account of the procedural lapses on the part of the GPCB in providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned closure direction / closure order dated 03.02.2026 cannot be allowed to stand.

10. On these submission, on the asking of the Court as to whether any objection has been filed by the petitioner with the relevant material before the GPCB till date, the answer is that no objections could be filed by the petitioner, as the closure direction had been issued on 03.02.2026 on the next day of the show-cause notice.

11. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of this Court in Kethos Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Pollution Control Board [Special Civil Application No.6098 of 2020] and the Bombay High Court in Bharatesh Construction Company Vs. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board [2018 SCC OnLine Bom 18260], to demonstrate that the approach of this court has been to interfere with the closure order and the revocation order in a case of violation of principles of natural justice and to remand the matter back for fresh consideration after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner therein.

12. Considering the above, we are required to record the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - GPCB. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent - GPCB would place the provisions of Sections 33A and 33B of the Act' 1974 as also Section 16(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NGT Act' 2010). Section 33A and Section 33B of the Act' 1974 and Section 16(c) of the NGT Act '2010 are relevant to be extracted hereinunder.:-

          Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:-

          "33A. Power to give directions.--Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, but subject to the provisions of this Act, and to any directions that the Central Government may give in this behalf, a Board may, in the exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under this Act, issue any directions in writing to any person, officer or authority, and such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply with such directions.

          Explanation.--For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power to issue directions under this section includes the power to direct--

          (a) the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process; or

          (b) the stoppage or regulation of supply of electricity, water or any other service."

          33B. Appeal to National Green Tribunal.-- Any person aggrieved by--

          (a) an order or decision of the appellate authority under section 28, made on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; or

          (b) an order passed by the State Government under section 29, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010"; or

          (c) directions issued under section 33A by a Board, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, may file an appeal to the National Green Tribunal established under section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

          The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 "16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction.- Any person aggrieved by,-

          xxxxxx........xxxxxx.........xxxxxx

          (c) directions issued, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by a Board, under section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);

          xxxxxx...........xxxxxx...........xxxxxx

13. We may also take note of Rule 34 of the Rules' 1975, placed before us as under:-

          Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975 "34. DIRECTIONS.

          (1) any direction issued under section 33A shall be in writing.

           (2) The direction shall specify the nature of action to be taken and the time within which it shall be complied with by the person, officer or the authority to whom such direction is given.

          (3) The person, officer or authority to whom any direction is sought to be issued shall be served with a copy of the proposed-direction and shall be given an opportunity of not less than fifteen days from the date of service of a notice to file with an officer designated in this behalf the objections, if any, to the issue of the proposed direction.

          (4) Where the proposed direction is for the stoppage or regulation of electricity or water or any other services affecting the carrying on an industry, operation or process and is sought to be issue to an officer or an authority, a copy of the proposed direction shall also be endorsed to the occupier of the industry, operation or process, as the case may be, and objections, if any, filed by the occupier with an officer designated in this behalf shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedures under sub-rules (3) and (5) of this rule:

          Provided that no opportunity of being heard shall be given to the occupier, if he had already been heard earlier and the proposed direction referred to in sub-rule (3) above for the stoppage or regulation of electricity or water or any other service was the resultant decision of the Central Board after such earlier hearing.

          (5) The Central Board shall within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of objections, if any, or from the date upto which an opportunity is given to the person, officer or authority to file objections whichever is earlier, after considering the objections, if any, received from the person, officer or authority sought to be directed and for reasons to be recorded in writing, confirm, modify or decide not to issue the proposed direction.

          (6) In a case where the Central Board is of the opinion that in view of the likelihood of a grave injury to the environment it is not expedient to provide an opportunity to file objections against the proposed direction, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, issue directions without providing such an opportunity.

          (7) Every notice or direction required to be issued under this rule shall be deemed to be duly served,-

          (a) Where the person to be served is a company, if the document is addressed in the name of the company and its registered office or at its principal office or place of business and is either-

          (i) sent by registered post; or

          (ii) delivered at its registered office or at the principal office or place or business;

          (b) Where the person to be served is an officer serving Government, if the document is addressed to the person and a copy thereof is endorsed to his Head of the Department and also to the Secretary to the Government as the case may be, in charge of the Department in which for the time being the business relating to the Department in which the officer is employed is transacted and is either-:

          (i) sent by registered post, or

          (ii) is given or tendered to him;

          (c) in any other case, if the document is addressed to the person to be served and-

          (i) is given or tendered to him, or

          (ii) if such persons cannot be found, is affixed on some conspicuous part of his last known place of residence or business or is given or tendered to some adult members of his family or is affixed on some conspicuous part or the land or building, if any, to which it relates, or

          (iii) is sent by registered post to that person.

           Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-rule:-

          (a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals;

          (b) "a servant" is not a member of the family."

14. From a conjoint reading of the above noted provisions contained in Sections 33A, 33B of the Act' 1974 and Section 16(c) of the NGT Act' 2010 as also Rule 34 of the Rules' 1975, we find that it is well within the jurisdiction of the GPCB to issue closure notice, if in its considered opinion, there is likelihood of a grave injury to the environment and it is expedient not to provide time or opportunity for filing objection to the noticee against the proposed direction. Reasoning in this regard can be found in the closure direction impugned herein issued by the GPCB, as extracted hereinabove.

15. In view of the categorical reasoning given in the impugned closure direction / order that stringent action are being taken against the respondent - university in view of the grave violation and causing serious damage to the environment, considering the nature of violation, it is expedient to take immediate action and opportunity of being heard is not being granted in the interest of the environment. We do not find any reason to attach any illegality to the said observations made in the order of closure, looking to the nature of the allegations against the petitioner herein.

16. Considering the grave nature of violations reported against the petitioner and the reasoning given in the closure direction, we do not find any good ground to invoke our extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to attach any illegality to the order impugned on the premise that the opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to the petitioner before issuance of the closure direction, i.e. for not providing even 3 days time for filing of objections to the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice dated 02.02.2026.

17. The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners on the orders passed by this Court and the Bombay High Court, as noted hereinabove, therefore, would be of no benefit to the petitioners.

18. As regards the factual issues raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the allegations made / reasons recorded in the order of closure direction, suffice it say that within the limited scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot act as a court of appeal to examine the material brought on record to assail the correctness of the factual statements made in the order impugned.

19. For any such dispute being raised by the petitioner, statutory remedy of filing an appeal to the National Green Tribunal against the closure direction is available under Section 33B of the Act' 1974 read with Section 16(c) of the NGT Act' 2010.

20. For the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to deliberate on the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner about the correct location of the tanker based on the GPS readings, so as to explain that the tanker could never be located at village Vyana in Gandhinagar.

21. We, thus, do not find it a fit case to maintain the challenge to the closure order dated 03.02.2026, under the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

22. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

23. Liberty rests with the petitioner to approach the GPCB for seeking revocation of the closure direction or file appeal before the National Green Tribunal. We further make it clear that, in case, the petitioner approaches GPCB seeking for revocation of the closure direction or files a statutory appeal before the National Green Tribunal, none of the observations made hereinabove will not come in the way of the parties and the GPCB / National Green Tribunal would be required to take an independent decision on the contentions / claims of the petitioner.

Direct service is permitted.