Facts
The case of the petitioner is that he was incorporated in the year 2010 and carrying a business in manufacturing of bulk drugs; the 3rd respondent granted consent for establishment vide order dated 24.04.2010 according to the application of the petitioner dated 19.06.2009; thereafter consent for the operation was accorded on 23.12.2020 and since then, petitioner was manufacturing various life-saving drugs in bulk but the validity of the consent for operation is valid till 31.06.2021. On 11.05.2021 due to the opening of a safety valve of a reactor, four persons at the site got injured and three of them have succumbed, the incident occurred during the process of manufacturing of Vidagliptin stage.
Petitioner submitted a compliance report with a covering letter on 20.05.2021 to the Pollution Control Board. According to the incident, a joint inspection team has been constituted and it submitted a report dated 21.05.2021; on 26.05.2021, the 3rd respondent without any show-cause notice has issued impugned order of Stop Production instructing the petitioner to stop production; there are several batches of important life-saving drug which is in the manufacturing process and the same cannot be stopped all of a sudden without bringing them into a safe stop mode, which will take two weeks requested. Petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent to reconsider their decision, but no orders have been passed on the same. Hence, the writ petition was filed before the Andhra High Court.
Arguments by the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the requirements suggested by the Pollution Control Board have been complied with by the petitioner and compliance report is also submitted and that the Board can inspect the premises of the petitioner at any time to check the compliance of the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has requested to continue the operation of production for two weeks and in the meanwhile, the authorities of the Control Board may come and inspect the premises and also point out the lapses and the same would be attended by the petitioner within no time and the learned standing counsel consented for the said request.
Arguments by the Respondent
Sri V Surender Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation on 27.05.2021 requesting two weeks to stop production and that the said letter is not filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition.
Court’s Observation
The court observed from the facts and circumstances of the case that with the consent of both the counsel to stop production order dated 26.05.2021 is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to carry on production for two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Court’s Decision
The Court gave the liberty to the 3rd respondent to conduct weeks requested by the petitioner to ensure compliance of all requirements and after inspection; the 3rd respondent has the liberty to take appropriate action by law. It is needless to state that before inspection, the 3rd Respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner about the date of inspection.
Click here to view the Judgement.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
