AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Mr. R. Thiagarajan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondent filed typed set of papers, containing 'Consent' orders dated 31.5.2017 issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Board) in respect of private respondents, numbering ten. A copy of the G.O.(3D).No.22 Environment and Forests (EC.3) Department dated 26.5.2017 is also produced. As per the said G.O which is stated to have been passed, based on a request made by the Board in the form of resolution dated 24.5.2017, the Government has accorded permission to the Board to consider the proposal for 'Consent to Operate' in respect of 10 dyeing units attached to M/s. Kasipalayam Common effluent Treatment Plant Pvt. Ltd., Agrahara Periyapalayam Village Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District. The G.O further states that the proposal has to be considered in view of G.O. Ms.No.213 Environment and Forests (EC.3) Department dated 30.3.1989 and G.O.(Ms) No.127 Environment and Forests (EC.3) Department dated 8.5.1998 so as to regularise the said 10 member units of CETP, subject to the conditions stipulated to the Annexure - II of the said G.O. It is pursuant to the said G.O referred to above, it appears that the Board has granted 'Consent' to the 10 dyeing units, subject to various conditions imposed therein.
The prayer in the application is to direct the respondents 1 and 2 viz, Board not to grant 'consent' to these private respondents, apart from directing the official respondents to recover subsidy claim of the private respondents and also to implement G.O.Ms.No.213 dated 30.3.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.127 dated 8.5.1998.
It is true that as per G.O.Ms.No.213 dated 30.3.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.127 dated 8.5.1998 the government has provided siting criteria for the establishment of highly polluting 'red' category industry. While G.O.Ms.No.213 dated 30.3.1989 specifies a distance of 1 KM, it was subsequently increased to 5 KM as per G.O.Ms.No.127 dated 8.5.1998. In the light of the 'Consent' order given to the private respondents dated 31.5.2017, it is true that the parties are to act as per the 'Consent' order, unless the orders are set aside in the manner known to law.
In view of the same, giving liberty to the parties to work out their remedy in the manner known to law against the 'Consent' order granted in respect of the said 10 units, the application stands closed.
Needless to state that in the event of parties approaching the appropriate authority challenging the 'consent' order, the authority will take into consideration the effect of G.O.Ms.No.213 dated 30.3.1989, G.O.Ms.No.127 dated 8.5.1998 and G.O.(3D) No.22 dated 26.5.2017 and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. The claim of compensation is left open to the parties to take up the same, after the Appellate Authority decides the matter.
In view of the disposal of the main application, pending M.A.Nos.62 to 64 of 2017 stand closed.