HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- WP(C) No.372/2023 MM Ram Mohan Lal Sharma ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate Vs UT of J&K and Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Vivek Matoo, Advocate vice Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER (11.07.2025) 1. The institution of this writ petition came to take place when the petitioner came to be served with an Order No.161 JK PCC 2023 dated 03.02.2023 issued by the Member Secretary, J&K Pollution Control Board, Jammu, purportedly acting under section 33 (A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and section 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 read with Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, thereby ordering the closure of Banquet Hall under the name and style of “Maya Resort”, Palli Vijaypur, Samba. 2. The owner of the above named premises is the petitioner herein Shri Mohan Lal Sharma who, in his writ petition, has assailed the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground of Serial No. 11 2 WP(C) No. 372/2023 violation of rules of natural justice that without putting him to requisite show cause notice, the impugned order, wherein civil consequences against him in the matter of running banquet hall came to be issued purportedly meaning to close the working and running of the banquet hall, stood issued. 3. The aforesaid submissions of the petitioner have gone unrebutted by the respondents who have come up with their own version stating therein that notices had been issued to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the impugned order but there is no accompanying annexure to the reply of the respondents to substantiate this plea. 4. In fact, the respondents cannot be heard to say that the petitioner was put to show cause notice immediately before passing of the impugned order for the simple reason that the impugned order itself does not bear any recitals specifying show cause notice’s number and date and its service whereby the petitioner was called upon to explain his position in the context of alleged non-compliance of the requisite environment related requisites in the matter of running a banquet hall. 5. Thus, the impugned order is to be taken to have been issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and that renders the impugned order bad in the eyes of law and is accordingly quashed by reserving liberty in favour of the J&K Pollution Control Committee, Jammu, to proceed afresh against the petitioner if it opts to do so by first 3 WP(C) No. 372/2023 putting the petitioner on a show cause notice, properly served, inviting response thereto, and then to pass an order on merits, be it for or against the petitioner which can then become the subject matter of writ petition. 6. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 11.07.2025 Sneha