Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010178282018 2025:GAU-AS:13716 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5520/2018 M/S AGARWALA RICE ENTERPRISES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SHILLONG ROAD, LANKA, NAGAON, P.O. AND P.S. LANKA IN THE DISTRICT OF HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN - 782446. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DISPUR GUWAHATI. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOJAI SANKARDEV NAGAR (FOOD CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BRANCH) 4:THE CHAIRMAN POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI- 781021. Page No.# 2/10 5:THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NAGAON. 6:THE GENERAL MANAGER DICC NAGAON ASSAM. 7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER LANKA REVENUE CIRCLE HOJAI ASSAM. 8:THE SECRETARY AZARBARI GAON PANCHAYAT HOJAI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MR. P DEKA,MR. A CHETIA,MR. M SAHEWALLA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, MR P S DEKA,SC, PCB,MR. P J SAIKIA,SC, FOREST,GA, ASSAM,MR. S K MEDHI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 14-10-2025 Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned counsel assisted by Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 7 and Mr. S. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 8. Page No.# 3/10 Facts of the case: 2. The petitioner is having a Rice Mill unit in the district of Hojai and the said Rice Mill was granted factory license to work which has been renewed every year. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the factory license was valid till 31.12.2018. The Azarbari Gaon Panchayat issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) to set up the concerned Rice Mill on the land taken on lease under the jurisdiction of Azarbari Gaon Panchayat. The Pollution Control Board (PCB), Assam granted consent to establish the said Rice Mill unit on 10.04.2015 and it is stated by the petitioner that the consent to operate was thereafter accordingly issued by the Pollution Control Board (PCB) every year. 3. The respondent no. 3, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar (Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs Branch), had issued an order dated 06.08.2018, to the Secretary of the Azarbari Gaon Panchayat, Hojai, Assam with directions to suspend the No Objection Certificate (NOC) which has been issued by the Gaon Panchayat. A copy of the said order was also served upon the Circle Officer, Lanka Revenue Circle, Hojai, Assam directing him to close down the Rice Mill with immediate effect. The impugned order reflected that it was passed on the basis of a magisterial-level enquiry into a public complaint. The further reason reflected in the order was that the Rice Mill had not complied with the Pollution Control Board (PCB) guidelines and was creating public nuisance in the surrounding area causing extreme inconvenience to the local people. Page No.# 4/10 4. On coming to know of the said order, the petitioner firm had filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 13.08.2018, with prayer for setting aside and quashing the order dated 06.08.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3. 5. By the order dated 13.08.2018 itself, this Court had issued rule in the matter and had suspended the operation of the impugned letter dated 06.08.2018. This Court had taken into account the submission that the petitioner firm was not given any notice prior to the order being passed and, therefore, the order prima facie appeared to have violated the norms of fair play and principles of natural justice. As of today, there is no affidavit on record filed on behalf of the respondent authorities to contest the contents of the writ petition. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner: 6. Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel with the assistance of Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Rice Mill in issue was initially granted No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the Azarbari Gaon Panchayat, Hojai, Assam on 19.06.2013 and after establishing the said Rice Mill, the Pollution Control Board (PCB) issued “consent to operate” the Rice Mill upto 31.03.2019. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that on an earlier occasion, without giving the petitioner or any other authority in the Rice Mill, any notice or copy of any public complaint or individual complaint, the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai by communication dated 30.12.2016 directed one of the partners engaged in the enterprise to suspend the Page No.# 5/10 production activity of parboiling section of the Rice Mill. The said communication was replied to on behalf of the concerned Rice Mill unit on 18.01.2017 and the orders requiring the suspension of production activity was thereafter withdrawn by the District Magistrate, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai by his order dated 31.05.2017. 7. The learned Senior counsel has then referred to the order dated 06.08.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar which had directed the Secretary of Azarbari Gaon Panchayat, Hojai, Assam to suspend the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued to the Rice Mill from the Panchayat on the basis of an alleged magisterial-level enquiry into a public complaint. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel that no prior notice was given to the petitioner firm even this time regarding any such action proposed by the District Level authorities, and he further submits that the petitioner firm was not intimated about any magisterial-level enquiry into alleged public complaint. The learned Senior counsel states that, as a matter of fact, even the copy of the alleged complaint was not supplied to the business establishment prior to the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 being brought into existence. 8. The learned Senior counsel has thereafter drawn the attention of this Court to the directions issued to the Circle Officer, Lanka Revenue Circle, Hojai, Assam for closing down the Rice Mill with immediate effect. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that this is a case where there is an apparent violation of all norms of fair play and principles of natural justice when the said authorities have interfered with the peaceful business activity of the petitioner firm without affording them any opportunity to Page No.# 6/10 clarify their statement on allegations, if any, raised either by individuals or by the general public with regard to their business establishment. The learned Senior Counsel has emphasized that the decision making process adopted by the State authorities is unheard of in law, inasmuchas, the decision has been taken at the mere ipse dixit of the respondent authority without any opportunity to the petitioner firm. 9. The learned Senior counsel has also submitted that an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner firm on 18.08.2025 to bring on record the consent to operate issued on 30.05.2022 by the Pollution Control Board (PCB) to emphasize that all parameters as laid down by the Pollution Control Board (PCB) for operating such a Rice Mill has been strictly adhered to by the petitioner. He submits that at present, the consent to operate is valid up to 31.03.2027. 10. The learned Senior counsel has further submitted that the respondent authorities although having notice of the present litigation has not contested the writ petition by filing any affidavit-in-opposition and, therefore, he submits that such action of not filing the affidavit-in- opposition may be construed as an admission on the part of the State authorities with regard to the illegality of the order dated 06.08.2018. Submission made on behalf of the respondent:- 11. Ms. U. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities namely respondent nos. 3 and 7 has submitted that she is still awaiting instructions from the District authorities with regard to the circumstances which led to the passing of the order dated 06.08.2018. She, therefore, Page No.# 7/10 initially sought for some time awaiting instructions in the matter. However, on reluctance of this Court to grant further time, since the matter has been pending from the year 2018, in her usual fairness, Ms. U. Das, learned counsel made her submission on the impugned order dated 06.08.2018. Ms. U. Das, learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 cannot be deemed to be an order without jurisdiction or without any basis since it refers to magisterial-level enquiry into a public complaint. She has submitted that the order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai, Assam in an apparent attempt to restrain the Rice Mill from operating without adhering with the guidelines issued by the Pollution Control Board (PCB) and also with a view to restrain the public nuisance being created in the surrounding area to the extreme inconvenience of the local people. 12. Ms. Das, learned counsel has submitted that any business/commercial activity which has the potential to create pollution has to adhere to the norms laid down by the appropriate Pollution Control authorities and, therefore, the order dated 06.08.2018 would not require the interference of this Court. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the request made by the same order to the Regional Executive Engineer, Pollution Control Board (PCB) to take necessary action to suspend the environmental clearance given to the business establishment concerned. She has, thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Discussion and Decision:- 13. This Court had duly heard the learned counsels appearing in the Page No.# 8/10 matter and has perused the documents which are available on record. 14. At the outset, this Court noticed that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner establishment had been issued an order to temporarily suspend their production activities till installation of sophisticated devices to eliminate possible hazards. This order issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, came to be withdrawn by an order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai subject to maintaining the Pollution Control Board (PCB) guidelines. The Executive Magistrate, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai by another order had informed the petitioner firm that since the Rice Mill had installed sophisticated devices to eliminate possible hazards by responding to the administrative order, the earlier order of temporarily suspending the production activity was withdrawn. 15. The order dated 06.08.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, which is the bone of contention, does not indicate that the petitioner enterprise had been given notice of any public complaint made against it or that the enterprise was allowed the opportunity to participate in the alleged magisterial-level enquiry into a public complaint. It is but natural that an enquiry into the functioning of the Rice Mill had to be necessarily with the knowledge and participation of the petitioner enterprise if an on-site inspection of the Rice Mill had been carried out during its functioning hours. The order dated 06.08.2018 does not reflect that the report of the magisterial-level enquiry had been supplied to the petitioner establishment before the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar had framed a mind to direct the Gaon Panchayat to suspend the No Objection Certificate (NOC) and/or before directing the Page No.# 9/10 Circle Officer to close down the Rice Mill with immediate effect. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents, on a pointed query made by this Court, also could not explain as to why Deputy Commissioner, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar had requested the Secretary, Azarbari Gaon Panchayat to suspend the No Objection Certificate (NOC) because the last No Objection Certificate (NOC) which had been issued by the Gaon Panchayat was to establish the unit and that too in the year 2013. 17. In my considered view, if the respondent no. 3 had found any violation of the norms required to be followed by the petitioner establishment, the proper course of action would have been to bring the same to the notice of the Pollution Control Board authorities, who were the competent authority to verify whether the norms were being adhered to or not. Even otherwise, in case the Deputy Commissioner, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar noticed any violation as aforesaid, the petitioner establishment was entitled in law to have an opportunity to answer to such allegations and so also entitled to have access to any magisterial- level enquiry report before adverse orders could have been passed by the establishment. 18. Keeping in view the fact that the Pollution Control Board (PCB) has in the recent times issued the consent to operate to the petitioner firm till 31.03.2027, and also considering the fact that the respondent no. 3 had passed the impugned order on 06.08.2018 without affording the petitioner establishment any opportunity of being heard or of making a representation against the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding Page No.# 10/10 that the order dated 06.08.2018 is not sustainable in law and deserves the interference of this Court. 19. Accordingly, the order dated 06.08.2018, which was kept under suspension by the order dated 13.08.2018 is hereby set aside and quashed. The request to the Gaon Panchayat for suspending the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued to the Rice Mill and the directions to the Circle Officer, Lanka Revenue Circle, Hojai, Assam and the General Manager, DICC, Nagaon is also interfered with. It is however clarified that the operation of the Rice Mill in issue shall be subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the consent to operate issued on 30.05.2022 by the Pollution Control Board (PCB), Assam and further that the concerned authorities having jurisdiction over the issue shall conduct such periodical tests and other inspection and inquiry to ensure that the Rice Mill in issue does not violate the norms mandated by law. 20. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by interfering with the order dated 06.08.2018. 21. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant