Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10500-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1567 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Model Exims (Unit 1) Unnao Thru Authorised Representative Naushad Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Environment Forests And Climate Change Lko And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakshit Raj Singh,Ayush Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Verma Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakshit Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Verma, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 5. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 6. 2. The petitioner is running a tannery leather industry for which installation of Primary Treatment Plants and Common Treatment Plants is a condition precedent. CTO (Consent to Operate) for operating the Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) is stated to have been issued on 03.01.2022. Admittedly, the CETP has been installed by a cluster of industries who discharge effluents into a Common Effluent Treatment Plant managed by the association of the industries themselves namely, M/s Unnao Tanneries Pollution Control Company. 3. On installation of Common Effluent Treatment Plant in the name of M/s Unnao Tanneries Pollution Control Company, the industries have been carrying out the business of manufacturing leather products. It appears that an inspection was conducted by a team of U.P. Pollution Control Board and National Mission for Clean Ganga(NMCG) on 13.4.2023 and effluents discharged from CETP were found not adhering to the standards prescribed. The apprehension of discharging the effluents by by-passing the treatment plant was also recorded in the inspection report. 4. It is for this reason that comprehensive directions were issued while taking action against the petitioner by the order dated 28.06.2023 whereby the production was put on hold till necessary compliance. A copy of the order was communicated to the petitioner as contained in annexure 3 to the writ petition. 5. Insofar as the revival of production is concerned, the same by means of the order dated 22.11.2023 has been restored to the extent of half and subject to rectification of the deviations as were communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.6.2023. 6. The imposition of the environmental compensation which is essentially the subject matter of the present writ petition was imposed by means of the same order dated 22.11.2023 but the grievance raised is that the same has been done without issuance of a show cause notice along with the inspection report dated 13.04.2023. The report dated 13.04.2023 though relied on in the order dated 22.11.2023 is not produced before us by the UPPCB for its non-availability. The Board has contended that the directions issued by the NMCG were forwarded to them but a copy of the inspection report dated 13.04.2023 was not forwarded to them before passing of the orders on 28.06.2023 or 22.11.2023. 7. Insofar as the imposition of environmental compensation to the tune of RS. 9,40,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakh Forty Thousand) is concerned, we do not gather from the reply filed by the petitioner that he was not supplied with a copy of the inspection report dated 13.04.2023. The submission regarding non-supply is believed to be true looking to the stand of Shri A.K. Verma who has stated that the UPPCB was even not supplied with a copy of the report dated 13.04.2023 and the action taken has proceeded on the basis of instructions issued by the NMCG. 8. Challenge to the imposition of the environment compensation once proceeded without supply of the inspection report ought to have been assailed by the petitioner on that premise before the Competent Authority but in any case, the petitioner appears to have filed his reply against the imposition of environment compensation on 30.01.2025 as contained annexure no. 6 to the writ petition. 9. The fairness of opportunity is a fundamental principle in arriving at decisions having civil consequences, therefore, having regard to the above principle, we hereby direct the U.P. Pollution Control Board to consider the petitioner's reply filed on 30.01.2025 or any supplementary reply filed by him within a period of ten days from the date of supply of the inspection report dated 13.04.2023 by taking of all the pleas. 10. In case any such reply is filed within the aforesaid period, the U.P. Pollution Control Board shall proceed to consider and decide the same not later than a period of three weeks from the date of its filing by passing a reasoned and speaking order. A copy of the inspection report dated 13.04.2023 which was not supplied to the petitioner, the same may be provided to him within a period of ten days from today by the Pollution Control Board so that the effective reply by supplementing his case is filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period. For a period of two months from today or till the representations are decided, whichever is earlier, the impugned order seeking realization of environment compensation shall not be acted upon against the petitioner. The realization however shall abide by the outcome of the representation as has been permitted to be made herein above. 11. We also make it clear that we have not dealt with the restricted operation of the industry on account of deviation of norms as have been communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 28.06.2023 followed by order dated 22.11.2023. 12. We also make it clear that the U.P. Pollution Control Board shall take all the necessary measures to ensure control of pollution more particularly restrain the Industries from by- passing the effluents into drainage without treatment through CEPT and stern warning be issued to the erring industries in this regard. The Writ Petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (A. R. Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Pradeep/- Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench