HC rejects Haryana's plea against Maruti

A High Court bench observed that the matter was being pursued 'to satisfy the ego of some officers' and hoped it will not be pressed further

The Delhi High Court today dismissed Haryana's plea challenging its order restraining the state from prosecuting car maker Maruti for not having prior environment clearance (EC) for its unit in Rohtak.

While rejecting the plea of Haryana State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw observed that the matter was being pursued "to satisfy the ego of some officers" and hoped it will not be pressed further.

"We do not find any merit in the appeal which is dismissed. We refrain from imposing any costs on appellant (Haryana SEIAA) and its officers who have filed this appeal in the hope that the appellants will not press the matter further which appears to being pursued to satisfy the ego of some officers of the appellants," the bench said.

The state had challenged the high court's May 26 order, passed with the consent of both parties, restraining Haryana from initiating proceedings against Maruti for not taking EC prior to setting up its unit in Rohtak.

The order was passed after the Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the state had submitted before a single-judge bench of the high court that it supports an amicable resolution of the disputes.

With the consent of Haryana and Maruti, the high court on May 26 had said that if the legality and validity of the 2006 notification are upheld and Maruti as well as its directors undertake to obtain ex-post facto EC and comply with its terms and conditions for project in Rohtak and all future projects in Haryana, the state would consider not initiating any criminal action against the company for not procuring prior EC with regard to the present project.

Challenging the order, SEIAA, in its plea, had contended that such an amicable settlement was not provided for under the statute in environment matters.

It had also said that the state had given no instructions to the AAG to give a consent.