AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the respondents.
1.The application is for a direction to the 4th respondent to close down its unit which is manufacturing and supplying heavy metal beams, barriers and grills that are being used in construction, structural and civil engineering works situated in S.Nos.438/1 and 438/2, Papparapakka Village, Koppur Main Road, Thiruvallur District and also for a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to withdraw the high tension power supply and water supply given to the 4th respondent.
Admittedly, the 4th respondent is carrying on the manufacturing activity which includes handling of metal sheets, using of heavy machinery, sawing, cutting, welding etc., and the applicant has shown clearly that the 4th respondent has defied the instructions regarding the pollution level.
The Pollution Control Board (Board) in its reply dated 26.10.2016 has clearly stated that during inspection on 20.9.2016 it was found that the 4th respondent was creating noise and emitting dust while grinding, sand blasting and polishing of steel structures. It is also stated that the 4th respondent is carrying on painting activity in open area without providing adequate APC measures which is resulting in dust deposits on the nearby mango groves, temple and the residences in the locality.
It is stated that the Board has issued a show cause notice on 21.9.2016 to the 4th respondent to make a reply in respect of the following activities:
i. The unit was carrying out the fabrication of steel structure for the construction of industrial shed or building in a open area adjacent to a temple and a residence
ii. The operation of the unit creates noise and dust emission especially during grinding, sand blasting and polishing of steel structure
iii. The unit carries out painting activity in open area without providing adequate APC measures leads to complaint regarding painting and grinding dust deposits over the nearby mango groves, on the temple and the residence located nearby.
iv. The unit operates without obtaining necessary consent of the Board under Water (P&CP) Act, 1974 and Air (P&CP) Act, 1981.''
It is also stated that the unit was again inspected on 14.10.2016 and during such inspection it was noticed that the unit maintained the same conditions, except shifting of sand blasting operation from the rear side of the temple to that of the other of about 50 meters within their premises. It was ascertained that there were deposits of sand and grinding dust on the temple walls. This is also stated in the reply filed by the 2nd respondent - District Collector, Tiruvallur.
In our order dated 22.12.2016 we made it very clear that merely because the 4th respondent has made application for "consent" to the Board it does not mean that it can carry on the activity without getting 'consent'.
On the factual matrix of the case, as it is seen in the reply filed by the Board, it is not only the fact that the 4th respondent has not obtained "Consent" but on inspection, the Board found many irregularities particularly, painting was done in the open area which is detrimental to the environment as such. In fact, we also made it clear that the 4th respondent shall not carry on the activity unless "Consent" is obtained. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that an online application has been made, unless and until the requirements which are called for by the Board in the show cause notice dated 21.9.2016, are complied with, the Board itself cannot issue "Consent". We make it clear that unless and until all the requirements called for by the Board in the show cause notice dated 21.9.2016 are complied with, the Board shall not give any "Consent".
The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that inspite of the order passed on 22.12.2016 directing the 4th respondent not to carry on the activities, even as on date the activities are being carried on. The photographs enclosed by the applicant and the Board also reveal the activities going on in the premises of the 4th respondent unit and causing heavy dust pollution.
In this view of the matter, we direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to lock and seal the premises of the 4th respondent immediately to ensure that the 4th respondent does not carry on the activity. We make it clear that if the online application for "consent" stated to have been made by the applicant is pending with the 1st respondent, it is open to the Board to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, however, subject to the condition that all the requirements called for as per the show cause notice dated 21.9.2016, as stated supra, shall be complied with. Till such valid "Consent" is granted by the Board, the 4th respondent's premises shall continue to be sealed. Only after such "Consent" is granted, the 4th respondent will be entitled to take necessary action for the purpose of carrying on the activity, as per the conditions stipulated in the "Consent" which may be granted in favour of the 4th respondent.
With the above direction, the application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.