Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.KRISHNAN versus TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.Krishnan v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board - W.P. (MD)NO.1277 OF 2006 [2007] RD-TN 305 (25 January 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 25/01/2007

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE DHARMA RAO ELIPE

and

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

W.P. (MD)NO.1277 OF 2006

and

W.P.M.P.Nos.1432 & 3672 of 2006 of 2006.

P.Krishnan .. Petitioner Vs

1.Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

rep. by its Member Secretary

76, Mount Road, Guindy,

Chennai 600 032.

2.The District Environment Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,

Tirnelveli 10.

3.The Commissioner

Mannur Panchayat Union,

Mannur, Tirunelveli District.

4.South India Bottling Company pvt. Ltd.,

Alsa Mall, 4 & 6, 3rd Floor,

149, Montieth Road, Egmore,

Chennai 600 008.

5.State Industries Promotion Corporation of

Tamil Nadu Ltd., (SIPCOT)

19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,

Egmore, Chennai 600 008. .. Respondents The above Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned Consent Order No.81/2004 dated 3.3.2005 - Proceedings No.DEE/TNV/F 1050/O/L/A/2005 dated 3.3.2005 passed by the respondents 1 & 2 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.R.Raman

1and 2

For 3rd Respondent : Mr.K.Mahendran

For 4th Respondent : Mr.G.Masilamani, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.Mthuramalingam

For 5th Respondent : Mr.G.Praburajdurai for Mr.V.Ramalingam

:ORDER



(Order of the Court was made by DHARMA RAO ELIPE, J.) The above writ petition was filed against the impugned Consent Order No.81/2004 dated 3.3.2005 - Proceedings No.DEE/TNV/F/1050/L/A/2005 dated 3.3.2005 passed by the first and second respondents in favour of the fourth respondent to start an Industry, on the ground that though the fourth respondent submitted an application dated 28.2.2005, the first respondent Board without observing the just formality of holding enquiry, in a mechanical manner ought not to have issued the Consent Order dated 3.3.2005. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the consent given by the first respondent was in contravention of Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

2.To test the veracity of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have gone through the provisions of law applicable to the above said Act. Section 25 of the Act contemplates the restrictions on new outlets and new discharges. Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board,- a)establish or take any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land; or

b)bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage; or c)begin to make any new discharge or sewage: Further sub section 2 of Section 25 of the Act contemplates that an application for consent of the State Board under sub-section (1) shall be made in such form, contain such particulars and shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed. Sub section 3 of Section 25 of the Act is relevant for the purpose that the State Board may make such inquiry as it may deem fit in respect of the application for consent referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act and in making any such inquiry, shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.

3.Therefore, the writ petition relying on sub section 3 of Section 25 of the Act contemplates for making such application for grant of consent of the Board in making any such inquiry as it may deem fit in respect of the application for consent referred to sub section 1 of Section 25 of the Act. In the case on hand, the fourth respondent admittedly was already granted permission to start the industry.

4.As seen from the counter filed by the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent applied for consent for establishing the unit to produce the following soft drink products by utlizing the water supplied by SIPCOT.

1. Coco Cola

2. Fanta

3. Limca

4. Thums Up

5. Carbonated/no carbonated

6. Spirte

7. Maza In the counter it is stated that the fourth respondent applied for consent to establish the soft drink manufacturing unit in the site of SIPCOT near Pirancheri Village of Tirunelveli District and the first respondent vide letter dated 25.10.2004 asked fourth respondent to furnish certain additional particulars. Thereafter, the fourth respondent also made a revised application dated 29.10.2004 to the first respondent. Thereafter on 21.10.2004 SIPCOT has agreed to supply 600 KLD of water to the fourth respondent subject to the availability. After secrutinising and complying with all the procedures, the first respondent issued the Consent Order to establish the unit under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) act, 1974 as amended under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, vide proceedings dated 19.11.2004. Therefore, the fourth respondent obtained fresh allotment of water supply from SIPCOT vide letter dated 22.2.2005 and thereby the quantity of water supply was enhanced from 600 KLD to 900 KLD. Thereafter, on the basis of above additional water supply, on 28.2.2005 the fourth respondent applied for consent with the revised proposal on the treatment and disposal of domestic sewage and trade effluent. Since the original application dated 14.10.2003 was considered after thorough enquiry, the first respondent issued the revised consent to establish the unit for the enhanced production capacity vide proceedings dated 3.3.2005.

5.With regard to the counter filed by the first and second respondents, it is stated that as per the application submitted by the fourth respondent, enquiry was already conducted on 17.2.2006 to start the Industry as per Section 25 of the of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and that the consent was given in accordance with the conditions laid down under section 25 of the Act.

6.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent in support of his contention submitted that the fourth respondent's unit falls under the category of food and beverage which was classified as orange category of Industries and hence there was no necessity of public hearing under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification issued in the year 1994 by the Government of India.

7.After hearing the counsel appearing for parties and considering the fact that as on today, the above said Industry has not started its production, we cannot interfere with the utilisation of water supplied by SIPCOT. The main issue in the writ petition is with regard to the Consent Order given as per Section 25 of the Act on the basis of the application dated 28.2.2005 by respondents 1 and 2 on 3.3.2005 and the objection is that the consent was given without any proper enquiry as required under sub-section 3 of Section 25 of the act. But as stated above, the consent was given by the respondents 1 & 2 on 3.3.2005, only after conducting enquiry for expansion of the Industry. Therefore, it is open to the Board to conduct the public hearing if they deem it is necessary. Further, we notice that as per Section 27 of the Act the refusal or withdrawal of consent lies with the State board and as per Section 28 of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Board under Section 25 of 26 or section 27 may, within thirty days from the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the State Government, But the petitioner without availing the effective alternative remedy, straight away approached this Court. Therefore, on this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8.We find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the respondent Nos.1&2 in the writ petition and therefore the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. TO

1.The Member Secretary

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

76, Mount Road, Guindy,

Chennai 600 032.

2.The District Environment Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,

Tirnelveli 10.

3.The Commissioner

Mannur Panchayat Union,

Mannur, Tirunelveli District.

4.South India Bottling Company pvt. Ltd.,

Alsa Mall, 4 & 6, 3rd Floor,

149, Montieth Road, Egmore,

Chennai 600 008.

5.State Industries Promotion Corporation of

Tamil Nadu Ltd., (SIPCOT)

19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,

Egmore, Chennai 600 008.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.