Shri E. Sivananthan vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board And Ors

Counsel for the parties are present. Rejoinder is filed.

This appeal challenges an interim order of the Appellate Authority - Pollution Control made in Appeal No. 36 of 2013 during the pendency of the same.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the contentions of the 4th and all other respondents as could be seen from the available material. The said Appeal No.36/2013 was preferred by M/s. Om Shakthi Engineering works who is the 4th Respondent herein challenging an order of closure made by the Pollution Control Board (TNPCB). Challenging the same, the original Writ Appeal was filed and it is also seen by the Tribunal already. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, Appeal No.36/2013 was taken on file by the Appellate Authority in order to consider the validity and legality of the order of closure. Pending the same, the Application Nos.31 and 32 of 2013 were filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, while hearing both sides, thought it fit to call for a report in respect of the noise level, which according to the appellant, is within the prescribed limit and according the respondents above the prescribed limit. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel, in short, would submit that the said interim order made by the Appellate Authority was not called for and hence it was second closure order made by the TNPCB on the main reason that the industry of the appellant therein is located in a prime residential area and hence the main question which arose for consideration before the Appellate Authority is in respect of the location of the Unit. While it was so, the Appellate Authority directed the TNPCB to restore the power supply for a period of one month during which period, the District Environmental Engineer concerned was directed to conduct the noise level test with vigour in the appellant's Unit during day and night and file a report. The counsel would further add that while all materials available would be indicative of the location of the Unit of the appellant therein is in prime residential area, such an interim order should not have been granted and the appellant was also at this stage of hearing the argument and hence the interim order made by the Appellate Authority ought to be the set aside. In answer to the above, it is submitted by the counsel for the 4th respondent herein and the appellant in Appeal No.36/2013 before the Appellate Authority has challenged the closure order on different grounds. The appellant , inter aila, has stated that as the disputed facts narrated in the order of closure or in particular with the 4th respondent Unit is situate in a commercial area and apart from that the noise level is within the prescribed limit and hence the order of closure is liable to be set aside. Under the circumstances the Appellate Authority thought it fit to pass the impugned order and hence the appeal before the Tribunal is devoid of merits and it is to be dismissed.

We have considered all the submissions made. The 4th Respondent herein has challenged the order of closure of the Unit wherein fabricating/manufacturing process of gates, windows, grills etc and metal works are being carried on. Much reliance was placed by the counsel for the appellant pointing to the material that the Unit of the 4th Respondent is in a prime residential area which fact is being disputed by the 4th respondent's Unit. It is pertinent to point out that it is also one of the issues pending before the Appellate Authority and need not be taken up for consideration by the Tribunal. Apart from that, it is also the case of the 4th respondent that the Unit has never caused any problem since the noise level is within the prescribed limit. Thus, from the materials, it could be seen that the order of the closure of the Unit of the 4th respondent is being challenged on both the grounds before the Appellate Authority. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is unable to notice any reason or force in the contention put forth by the appellant that a noise test should not be ordered by the Appellate Authority while pending the appeal.

In view of the same, the Tribunal is unable to notice any merit in the contention putforth by the appellant before the Tribunal at this stage. Hence the Appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that all the questions factual and legal are kept open to be raised before the appellate authority by the parties. Hence the appeal is dismissed.

No cost.