Upload
phamxuyen
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
APPEAL Nos. 16 and 17 of 2013 (SZ)
In the matter of:
Mrs. M. Saraswathi Proprietor M/s. Ohm Sakthi Blue Metals S.F. No. 1284/2,3,4 Sivamalai village Kangeyam Taluk Tiruppur District . .. Appellant in both appeals
-versus-
1. The District Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Perundurai. 2. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep. by its Member Secretary Guindy Chennai- 600 032. 3. The Appellate Auythority Tamil Nadu Pollution Control ‘Krishna Vilas” No.51, Gangadheeswara Koil Street Purasaiwalkam Chennai- 600 084. .. Respondents in both appeals.
Counsel appearing for: Appellant : M/s. S. Selvaraj and Lakshmikanthan, Advocates Respondents: Shrimathi Rita Chnadrasekar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
2
JUDGMENT
Present: Hon’ble Justice Shri M. Chockalingam Judicial Member Hon’ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran Expert Member
Date: 19th December 2013
Hon’ble Justice M. Chockalingam Judicial Member
These appeals challenge a common order dated 29.01.2013 of the
Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control made in Appeal Nos. 14 and 15
of 2012 whereby an order of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (for short
‘Board’) rejecting the application for consent made by the appellant under Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 for operation of the stone crushing unit namely, M/s. Ohm
Sakthi Blue Metals situate at S.F. No. 1284/2,3,4 Sivamalai Village, Kangeyam
Taluk of Tiruppur District owned by the appellant herein was sustained. As the facts
and circumstances of both the appeals now made before the Tribunal are identical
both the appeals are taken up together for adjudication by a common order.
Necessary facts for the disposal of the appeals in short are as follows:
2) The appellant herein is the proprietor of M/s. Ohm Sakthi Blue Metals and
running the stone crushing unit as she was granted permission to start a stone
quarry in her pattta land bearing S. Nos. 1284/2 and 1284/4 of Sivamalai village in
an extent of 2.12.0 ha by the District Collector, Tiruppur for the period 12.12.2005
to 11.12.2010 and the lease period was subsequently extended for another five
years. The appellant herein had made an application on 17.05.2006 to the 1st and
2nd respondents/the Board for consent, which was returned to the appellant without
3
being processed and without disclosing any reason. The appellant had also
obtained electricity service connection from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (for
short ‘TNEB’) in service connection No. 451. The crusher unit started functioning
from August 2006. While so, a writ petition was filed by one Mr. Karthikeyan before
the Hon’ble High Court, Madras in W.P.No.81 0f 2011 for disposing of his
representation dated 03.12.2010. The Hon’ble High Court by the order dated
04.01.2011 directed the District Collector, Erode and the Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board officials to consider the said representation and for passing
appropriate orders as per law within four weeks after providing an opportunity of
hearing to the parties.
3) Pursuant to the orders dated 04.01.2011 in W.P. No. 81 of 2011, a show
cause notice was issued to the appellant herein by the District Environmental
Engineer of the Board at Perundurai in Proceedings No. F.INV/DEE/PND/A/2011
dated 18.01.2011 and the appellant had submitted reply to the show cause notice
on 05.02.2011. The Board had passed an order in Proceedings No.
TNPCB/LAW/LA1/000458/A-1 dated 27.07.2011 for closure of the appellant’s unit
and directions for disconnection of power supply. The reasons inter alia for the issue
of the closure order and disconnection of power supply as stated in the proceedings
of the Board was that the unit was not having consent from the Board. Hence, the
appellant herein resubmitted the application for consent on 16.08.2011 and the
same was rejected by the Board on 19.08.2011. Thereafter, the appellant herein
filed two appeals before the Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control, (for
short “Appellate Authority”) the third respondent herein in Appeal Nos. 14 and 15
of 2012 under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 (for short “Water Act”, 1974) and under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short “Air Act”, 1981) and the said appeals were
dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 29.01.2013. The appeals were filed by the
appellant herein before the Tribunal.
4) The appellant herein assails the dismissal ordered to the appeals filed
before the Appellate Authority on the grounds of non-applicability of the B.P. No. 4
dated 02.07.2004 of the Board and that one M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metal which was
granted consent to operate is situate within 1 km from the appellant’s unit and it is
4
not stated in the counter filed by the respondents as to when M/s. Jayasakthi Blue
Metal was granted the consent to operate and if M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metal came
after the appellant’s application, only the appellant is to be considered and the
existence of M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metal cannot be a criterion to reject the application
of the appellant made for consent. The observation of the Appellate Authority that
on the date of inspection on 13.01.2011 the unit of M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metal
existed will not fix the date of existence of M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metal as the
appellant’s unit is in existence from the year 2006. The appellant has further pleaded
that before passing the order rejecting the application made for consent in the
proceedings dated 19.08.2011 an opportunity of being heard was not provided to
the appellant against Section 21 of the Air Act, 1981 and Section 25 of the Water
Act, 1981 and the appellant has therefore contended that observations of the
Appellate Authority in this regard are based on surmises. Hence, the appellant
seeks to set aside the orders dated 19.08.2011 of the respondent Board and the
order dated 29.01.2013 of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeals made in
Appeal Nos. 14 and 15 of 2012 of the said authority and to direct the
respondent/Board to grant consent to operate the appellant unit in S.F. Nos.
1284/.2, 3, 4 of Sivamalai village in Tiruppur District.
5) The 1st respondent herein, the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil
Nadu Pollution Control Board, Perundurai in Tiruppur District has filed a reply on
his behalf and on behalf of the Member Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board, Chennai. The 2nd respondent herein has filed a reply stating that the
1st respondent had received a complaint on 31.12.2010 from one P. Karthikeyan of
Sambhandhapalayam in Kangeyam Taluk of Tiruppur District alleging dust pollution
caused from the stone quarry operated by the appellant herein in S.F. No.1284/2,3,4
at Sivamalai village in Kangeyam Taluk in Tiruppur District and the appellant’s unit
was inspected on 13.01.2011. During the said inspection it was observed that a
stone quarry and stone crusher unit were under operation without obtaining consent
under the Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 and was being operated without
providing adequate Air Pollution Control (for short “APC”) measures. Hence, a show
cause notice was issued on 18.01.2011 to the appellant’s unit under Air Act, 1981.
In the meanwhile, one P. Karthikeyan filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High
5
Court of Madras in W.P. No. 81 of 2011 with a prayer for directions to the
respondent/Board (in the writ petition) to take action against the appellant herein.
The Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 04.01.2011 directed the Board to consider
the representation of the petition dated 03.02.2010 and to pass appropriate orders
on merits and in accordance with law within a period four weeks after giving
opportunity to the affected parties. The appellant’s unit was inspected on 13.01.2011
and during the inspection among other things following were observed:
The appellant’s unit was found operating a quarry near the unit.
Necessary consent from the Board was not obtained for the stone crusher unit
and the quarry, under the Water and Air Acts.
The stone crusher was operated without adequate APC measures.
6) As per the observations made during the inspection of the unit of the
appellant, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant’s unit which was not
replied. Further, as per B.P. No. 4 dated 02.07.2004, a minimum distance between
two stone crusher units shall be 1 km to avoid dust influence of one over the other,
and two stone crushing units namely M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metals and M/s. Sakthi
Murugan Blue Metal both in Sivanmalai village of Kangeyam Taluk in Tiruppur
District were located within 1 km from the appellant’s unit. M/s. Jayasakthi Blue
Metal has obtained necessary consent from the Board while the other did not obtain
the consent. Based on the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, the appellant
and the writ petitioner were directed to attend the first respondent’s office on
07.03.2011 for personal hearing. But neither of them attended the hearing. Hence,
in order to comply with the orders of the High Court closure orders were issued and
also for disconnection of electricity to the appellant’s unit vide Board’s Proceedings
No. TNPCB/LAW/LA1/000458/EB-1/2011 dated 27.07.2011. As regards the claim
of the appellant that her unit is being operated since 2006, the appellant had filed
an application for consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 on 16.08.2011
and the same was rejected on the ground that the location of the unit did not satisfy
the siting criteria as per Board’s Proceedings Nos. 4 and 5 dated 02.07.2004 and
06.10.2005 as the appellant’s unit is located within 1 km from a crushing unit namely,
6
M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metals for which consent of the Board has already been
issued. Hence, the respondent/Board seeks to pass suitable orders in the appeals.
7) The points that would arise for determination in these appeals are: (1)
whether the common order of the Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control
is liable to be set aside for all or any of the grounds putforth by the appellant, (2)
whether the appellant is entitled to get direction to the respondent/Board to grant
the consent to operate the appellant’s unit, (3) to what relief the appellant is entitled
to.
8) Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant the learned counsel
would submit that the appellant was originally granted permission to start a stone
quarry in S. Nos. 1284/2 and 1284/4 at Sivamalai Village, Kangeyam Taluk of
Tiruppur District by the District Collector Tiruppur for a period of 5 years till
11.12.2010 and the same was also extended for another 5 years. The appellant has
also obtained electric service connection in the month of 12/2005 and the crusher
was continuously functioning from 8/2006. While it stood so, the appellant made an
application for consent from the Board on 17.05.2006 and no orders were passed
by the Board. In the meanwhile, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras by an order dated
04.01.2011 made in W.P.No.81 of 2011 directed the Board and the District Collector
to consider the representation of the writ petitioner Karthikeyan and pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks.
Pursuant to the order of the High Court, a show-cause notice dated 18.01.2011 was
served on the appellant which was suitably replied on 05.02.2011. Despite the
same, the Board has passed the impugned order on 27.07.2011 for closure of the
unit and also for disconnection of power supply on the ground that the unit was not
having the consent. Hence, the appellant resubmitted the application for consent on
16.08.2011, but the same was rejected by the Board on 19.08.2011. When the
appellant challenged the said order of rejection before the Appellate Authority, Tamil
Nadu Pollution Control in Appeal Nos. 14 and 15 of 2012, the appeals were
dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 29.01.2013 on the grounds which were not
applicable to the appellants.
7
9) The Appellate Authority has neither considered the actual factual position
nor applied the required principles thereon. It is not disputed by the
respondent/Board that an application for consent was made on 17.05.2006, but no
orders were passed. The contention putforth by the respondents’ side that the said
application was withdrawn was thoroughly incorrect and false. The application made
for consent both under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 was not disposed of within
a period of 4 months and hence, it is deemed that the consent was given to the
appellant. In the instant case, the deeming provisions of the above Acts have to be
applied. Even assuming that the application was returned, as per the orders of the
High Court in W.P. No. 1560 of 2006 dated 20.03.2007 no consent order is
necessary. In W.P. No. 1560 of 2006, the B.P.4 dated 02.07.2004 was challenged,
where the High Court has stayed the directions of the Board regarding the distance
criteria of 1 km between two stone crusher units prescribed in the B.P.4 dated
02.07.2004. It is true that the said writ petition was dismissed, but the appellant
applied for consent again and an inspection was made on 18.08.2011 without
adequate notice and an order came to be passed on 19.08.2011 by the Board. It is
pertinent to point out that the Board has rejected the application by introducing new
reasons not found in the show cause notice and the same would indicate that the
Board has acted arbitrarily. Even in the show cause notice, the name of the unit
which is situate within 1 km was not mentioned. Apart from that, the said unit started
functioning from the year 2011 and hence, it would be quite clear that the other unit
namely, M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metal, which was started in 2011 should be taken as
a subsequent unit and functioning in violation of B.P.4, which prescribes the 1 km
distance between two units. In so far as the report filed by the Board on 10.12.2013
is concerned that M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metal applied for consent to establish on
05.04.2005 before the respondent/Board, the same was valid only for two years or
till the industry obtained the consent to operate under the Water Act, 1974 and Air
Act, 1981 whichever was earlier and thus, the consent to establish in favour of that
unit would have lapsed after the period of 2 years and there was no whisper that
the consent to establish was ever renewed after the period of 2 years. Hence, the
report cannot be taken as against the appellant and on that ground the B.P.4 and
also the 1 km distance cannot be applied to the appellants case. Hence, the order
of the Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control was not based on proper
8
reasoning and also on law. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore,
contends that the order passed dismissing the appeals by the Appellate Authority,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has to be set aside and the respondent/Board
should be directed to give consent to the appellant’s unit.
10) Assailing all the above contentions, the learned counsel for the Board
would submit that based on a complaint, the appellant’s unit was inspected on
13.01.2011 and during inspection it was observed that a stone quarry and a stone
crusher were established and the appellant was carrying on the operations without
obtaining consent from the Board under the Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981. It
was also noticed that the appellant’s unit was operated without providing adequate
APC measures. Moreover, based on the inspection report, a show cause notice was
issued to the appellant under the provisions of the above enactments. Following the
same, recommendation was made to issue directions for closure and also for
disconnection of power supply for the reasons that the unit has not replied to the
show cause notice and also has not obtained the consent of the Board. Apart from
that, as per B.P.4 dated 02.07.2004, 2 stone crushing units cannot be located within
1 km from each other. In the instant case,
M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metals was located within 1 km from the appellant’s unit and
the same has already obtained consent for establishment from the Board even prior
to the appellant’s unit. One Mr. Karthikeyan filed a writ petition in W.P. No.81 of
2011 before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras against the operation of blue metal unit
and stone quarry of the appellant complaining of causing pollution without having
any control measures and the Hon’ble High Court issued directions on 04.01.2011
to consider the representation of the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders
thereon. Based on the above, the appellant was requested to attend the office of the
District Environmental Engineer at Perundurai for a personal hearing on 07.01.2011.
But, the appellant did not attend the personal hearing. In obedience to the order of
the High Court, Madras an order of closure and also the disconnection of power
supply was issued to the appellant’s unit. In the meanwhile, the complainant Mr.
Karthikeyan filed a writ petition seeking directions to the respondents namely the
authorities of the Board to take action against the appellant’s unit. The counsel
would further add that the appellant has claimed that she was operating the unit
9
from 2006 which would clearly indicate that she was carrying on the operations
without obtaining consent for establishment as required by law. It is true that the
appellant’s unit was inspected on 13.01.2011 and a show cause notice was issued
on 18.01.2011 and a reply was made on 05.02.2011, but the same was not
satisfactory. The appellant was given an opportunity to be present in person for a
personal hearing on 07.03.2011, but the appellant did not appear for a personal
hearing. But, she made an application for consent on 16.08.2011. The application
for consent was rejected on 19.08.2011. Aggrieved over the rejection of the consent
application, the appellant preferred the appeals before the Appellate Authority and
the Appellate Authority has considered the contentions putforth by both sides and
has passed a common reasoned order sustaining the rejection of the application
made by the appellant before the Board and thus, the appeals have no merits and
both the appeals have got to be dismissed.
11) The Tribunal paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made on
either side and also looked into all the materials placed. Challenge is made to the
Common Order passed by the Appellate Authority/Tamil Nadu Pollution Control
confirming the rejection of application made by the appellant, the Proprietor of
M/s. Ohm Sakthi Blue Metals, Sivamalai Village, in Kangeyam Taluk of Tiruppur
District for consent to establish and operate the said unit. From the available
materials and submissions made by both sides, the following would emerge as
admitted facts.
12) The appellant obtained permission for starting a stone quarry in her patta
land in S.F. No. 1284/2,3,4 of Sivamalai Village, Kangeyam Taluk of Tiruppur District
from the District Collector, Tiruppur for a period of 5 years from 12.12.2005 and the
same was extended for another 5 years. The crusher unit of the appellant was
continuously functioning from August 2006. The appellant applied for consent to
establish a stone crushing unit on 17.05.2006 before the Board, but the same was
neither considered nor ordered. One Mr. Karthikeyan filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.81 of 2011 before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras complaining of pollution
caused by the appellant’s unit from both quarry and crushing unit,. The Hon’ble High
Court, Madras by an order dated 04.01.2011 directed the officers of the Board and
the District Collector, Tiruppur to consider the representation and pass appropriate
10
orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks therefrom.
An inspection of the appellant’s unit was made by the authorities of the Board on
13.01.2011 when it was noticed that the stone crushing unit and the quarry were
being operated without obtaining consent of the board under Water Act and Air Act.
A show cause notice was issued on 18.01.2011 by the Board and the same was
replied by the appellant on 05.02.2011. A personal hearing was fixed on 07.03.2011
at the District Environmental Engineer’s office at Perundurai which was not attended
by the appellant. An order for closure was passed by the Board on 27.07.2011 on
the reasons that the unit was not having consent to establish or operate. The
appellant made an application on 16.08.2011 for consent which was rejected on
19.08.2011.
13) Before considering the merits or otherwise of rival contentions, it would be
apt and appropriate to look into the mandatory provisions for obtaining consent
which are envisaged under Section 25 of the Water Act, 1974. This reads as follows:
“ 25. Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges:
(1) [(1) 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 an extension or addition thereto, which is likely
to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or
well or sewer or on land (such discharge being hereafter
in this section referred to as discharge of sewage); or
(b) ***
(c) ***
14) The words ‘employed’ in the above provision “establish or take any steps
to establish any industry” were interpreted by Hon’ble Supreme court of India in
11
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board Vs. Naidu reported in 2001(2)SCC 67 as
follows:
“Point 4:
This point deals with the principle of promissory
estoppel applied by the appellate authority, on the
ground that once building permission and permission
for change of land use were granted, the appellant
Board could not refuse NOC. The learned Additional
Solicitor General, Sri R.N. Trivedi referred to the
amendment to Section 25(1) in this connection. Under
Section 25 (1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 as it original stood, sub-section (1)
thereof read as follows: "Section 25(1): Subject to the
provisions of this section, no person shall, without the
previous consent of the State Board, bring into use any
new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage or
trade effluent into a stream or well or begin to make any
new discharge of sewage or trade effluent into a stream
or well". By Central Act 53/1988, the sub-section was
amended and reads as follows:
"Section 25(1): 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 (such
discharge being hereafter in this section referred to as
discharge of sewage) or (b) bring into use any new or
altered outlet for the discharge of sewage, or (c) bring
to make any new discharge or sewage....." After the
12
amendment, the prohibition now extends even to
'establishment' of the industry of taking of steps for that
process and therefore before consent of the Pollution
Board is obtained, neither can the industry be
established nor any steps can be taken to establish it.
The learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Sri
Trivedi is right in contending that the 7th respondent
industry ought not to have taken steps to obtain
approval of plans by the Gram Panchayat, nor for
conversion of land use by the Collector, nor should it
have proceeded with civil work in a installation of
machinery. The action of the industry being contrary to
the provisions of the Act, no equities can be claimed.
The learned Appellate Authority erred in thinking that
because of the approval of plan by the Panchayat, or
conversion of land use by the Collector or grant of letter
of intent by the Central Government, a case for applying
principle of "promissory estoppel" applied to the facts of
this case. There could be no estoppel against the
statute. The industry could not therefore seek an NOC
after violating the policy decision of the Government.
Point 4 is decided against the 7th respondent
accordingly.
15) The very reading of the judgment of the Apex Court would make it clear
that the consent of the Pollution Control Board of the State is a condition precedent
for establishment of an industry or for taking any steps for establishment.
16) In the instant case, it is very clear as could be seen from the averments
made by the appellant and also from the inspection report by the authorities of the
Board that a stone quarry and stone crusher were being operated without getting
consent of the Board as required under the mandatory provisions of the enactments.
13
The contentions put forth by the appellant’s side that she was granted permission
for starting a stone quarry by the District Collector for a period of 5 years and the
same was extended by another 5 years and she also obtained electric supply
connection, in no way conferred any right on the appellant either to establish or
operate the units, in the absence of requisite consent under the Water and Air Acts.
Hence, the Board was perfectly right in passing the closure orders in respect of the
units of the appellant, since the units were carrying on illegally. What noticed was
only making an application for consent in the year 2006 and after making so, the
appellant was carrying on the units without caring for getting any consent thereon.
Needless to say, mere making an application for consent under both the Acts by
itself would not confer any right to establish or operate under the enactments. It is
pertinent to point out at this juncture that what was challenged before the Appellate
Authority was not the order of closure of the units, but only the rejection of the
application made by the appellant on 16.08.2011 for consent to establish and
operate the units. A perusal of the rejection of the order of the appellant for consent
made by the Board would make it absolutely clear that the rejection was made on
two grounds; firstly the unit has not provided APC measures which were
enumerated therein and secondly, the location of the units also did not satisfy the
siting criteria stipulated in Board’s Proceedings Nos. 4 dated 02.07.2004 and 5
dated 06.10.2005 since the unit was located within 1 km from another stone crusher
unit in the name of M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metals for which consent of the Board has
been issued. When these grounds were challenged, the Appellate Authority was not
convinced on the grounds adduced by the appellant and recorded them as meritless
and dismissed the appeals.
17) As could be seen above, the appellant seeks a direction to the Board on
the grounds that the B.P. Ms. No. 4 dated 02.07.2004 is not applicable to the
appellant’s unit as M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metals came into existence only in the year
2011 and thus the unit of the appellant which came into existence at the point of
time and even in the show cause notice issued either the existence of
M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metals, nor the application of B.P. Ms. No.4 dated 02.07.2004
was mentioned and on that ground, the respondent/Board having not passed any
14
order on the application of the appellant in the year 2006, cannot now be argued to
say that the reasons adduced for rejection are invalid.
18) The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that none of the contentions as
recorded above would carry any sustenance or merit. The B.P. Ms. No.4 dated
02.07.2004 stipulates a minimum distance between two stone crushing units as I
km to avoid pollution influence of one over the other. The said Board’s proceedings
were challenged in W.P. No. 1560 of 2006 before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras
and though an interim stay of the operation of the B.P. Ms. No. 4 dated 02.07.2004
was granted initially, the same was dismissed upholding the validity of the B.P. Ms.
No.4 and hence, the validity of B.P. Ms. No.4 dated 02.07.2004 cannot now be
canvassed by the appellant. The case of the appellant that his stone crushing unit
came into existence earlier in point of time cannot be accepted for the simple reason
that the only material relied on by the appellant was the application made for consent
dated 17.05.2006 and nothing more. No consent was ever given either on that
application or subsequently thereto till date. Merely making an application can be
taken only as a step for getting consent and thus, it cannot be taken as either
consent to establish or operate. It is contended by the Board that M/s. Jayasakthi
Blue Metals applied for consent to establish on 05.04.2005 prior to the appellant’s
unit and consent to establish was issued on 12.04.2005.
19) When such submission was made at the time of enquiry of the appeal a
direction was issued to the concerned District Environmental Engineer for
production of the original file pertaining to the issue of consent to M/s. Jayasakthi
Blue Metals and the same was also produced. A perusal of the file made it clear that
M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metals made the application for consent on 05.04.2005 and
the consent thereon was given on 12.04.2005. Thus, it is quite evident that even
before the application for consent to establish was made by the appellant on
17.05.2006, M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metals applied for and obtained consent to
establish. Hence, it would be futile on the part of the appellant to state that her unit
came into existence earlier in the point of time. It is also not disputed by the appellant
that the distance between the unit of the appellant and M/s. Jayasakthi Blue Metals
is within in 1 km and hence, applying B.P. Ms. No. 4 dated 02.07.2004, the consent
as asked for by the appellant cannot be granted. Even assuming that all the APC
15
measures which were noticed as not provided are provided now, the appellant is not
entitled for the consent in view of the application of B.P. Ms. No.4, dated 02.07.2004.
20) Hence, the Tribunal is unable to notice any reason to interfere with the
reasoned order of the Appellate Authority and the appeals are liable to be dismissed
and are accordingly dismissed.
No cost.
(Justice M. Chockalingam)
Judicial Member
(Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran) Expert Member