BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                             NEW DELHI
                      (PRINICIPAL BENCH)
                Wednesday the 15th February, 2012

                       APPEAL NO.19 of 2011

Quorum:

  1. Hon'ble Justice Shri C.V. Ramulu
     (Judicial Member)

  2. Hon'ble Prof R.Nagendran
     (Expert Member)

    Between :

  1. M/S P Manokaran Power Loom
     Rep. by its Proprietor
     Amani Palaniappal Mundali Street
     Tharamangalam
     Salem District -636 502
     Tamil Nadu

  2. M/S Selvam Power Loom
     Rep by its Proprietor
     Ka Kho Arumuga Kundali Street
     New 6th Ward
     Tharamangalam-636 502
     Tamil Nadu
 3. M/S Boopathy Power Loom
   Rep. by its proprietor
   6-11 -15-/1,Ka Kho Arumuga Kudali Street
   New 6th Ward
   Tharamangalam
   Salem District -636 502
   Tamil Nadu



4. M/S Arumugam Power Loom
   Rep by its Proprietor
   Pulavan Street
   Old 2nd Ward/New 3rd Ward
   Tharamangalam
   Salem District -636 502
   Tamil Nadu

5. M/S Kuberan Power Loom
   Rep. by its Proprietor
   Saravana Kuppanna Kailasa Mudali Street
   New 6TH Ward
   Tharamangalm
   Salem District -636 502
   Tamil Nadu

6. Govindam Power Loom
   Rep by its Proprietor
   T.Govindan , Ka Kho Arumuga
   Mundali Street, New 6th Ward
   Tharamangalm
   Salem District -636 502
   Tamil Nadu
  7. M/S Madhu Power Loom
    Rep. by its Proprietor
    Sengattapattian House
    Ka Kho Arumuga Kundali Street
    Tharamangalm
    Salem District -636 502
    Tamil Nadu

 8. M/S Madhu Power Loom
    Rep by its Proprietor
    Saravana Kuppanna Kailasa Mundali Street
    Tharamangalm
    Salem District -636 502
    Tamil Nadu

 9. M/S Mohanasundaram Power Loom
    Rep by its Proprietor
    Kattu Velayutha Mudali Street
    Tharamangalm
    Salem District -636 502
    Tamil Nadu


10. M/S Balakrishnan Power Loom
    Rep by Proprietor
    T. Balakrishnan
    Saravana Kuppanna Kailasa Mundali Street
    Tharamangalm
    Salem District -636 502
    Tamil Nadu
  11.      M/S KRP Balu Power
         Rep by its proprietor
         Saravana Kuppanna Kailasa Mudali Street
         Tharamangalm
         Salem District -636 502
         Tamil Nadu


  12 . M/S Gnanaprakasam Power Loom
       Rep by its proprietor
       Kattu Velayutha Mudali Street
       Tharamangalm
       Salem District -636 502
       Tamil Nadu

  13. M/S Selvaraj Power Loom
      Rep by its proprietor
      Kattu Velayutha Mudali Street
      Tharamangalm
      Salem District -636 502
      Tamil Nadu

14.      M/S Ganesan Power Loom
         Rep by its proprietor
         Saravana Kuppanna Kailasa Mudali Street
          Tharamangalm
         Salem District -636 502
         Tamil Nadu
                                                   .........Appellants
                                v/s

      1. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
         Rep by its Chairman
         76, Mount Salai
         Guindy, Chennai- 600 032
 2. District Environmental Engineer
   Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
   Siva Tower, Meyanur Road
   Salem District -636 004
   Tamil Nadu

3. S. Sakthivel
   Old 3rd Ward, New 6th Ward
   Ammani Palaniappa Mundali Street
   Tharamangalm
   Salem District -636 502
   Tamil Nadu
                                                    .............Respondents

     (Advocates appeared: Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan for Appellants, Mr Prasanna
     Venkat for Respondant No. 1 & 2 ).


                           JUDGMENT

(Judgment delivered by the Bench)

1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.10.2010 made under Section 31 -A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, (for short Air act ) whereunder the Unit of the Appellant was directed to be closed and further the electricity Board was directed to stop supply of electricity for certain violations under the said Act. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant appears to have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 2389 to 2408 of 2010. However, the said writ petition papers were directed to be returned to the Appellant to enable him to approach the Green Tribunal.

2. When the matter had come up for hearing on 14.2.2012, we entertained a doubt as to the maintainability of the application. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought adjournment till date. The Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted and argued that though the impugned order is passed under Section 31-A of the Air Act and an appeal is available under Section 31 of the same Act to the named authority, this appeal is also maintainable for various reasons.

Firstly, the Appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order, filed Writ Petition No. 2389 to 2408 of 2010 before the Honorable High Court of Madras. The Writ Petition was entertained. However, on 15.9.2011, the papers were returned to enable the appellant to approach this Tribunal. Therefore, there is no necessity for Appellant to approach the Appellant Authority u/s 31 of the Air Act.

Secondly, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras itself has recorded that to enable Petitioner to approach the Green Tribunal, the papers were returned, and as such, it is the binding duty of this Tribunal to entertain this Appeal and dispose it on merits and it cannot examine the aspect of maintainability at this stage.

3. We are afraid, we may not agree with the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri G. Sivabalamurugan in this regard. Ours is only a Statutory Tribunal and merely because the papers were returned by The Hon'ble High Court of Madras to enable the appellant to approach this Tribunal, it cannot be said that we should entertain the appeal without examining the legal provisions.

4. It is an admitted fact that against the impugned order dated 28.1.2010, an appeal under Section 31 of the Air Act is available. Instead of availing of that remedy, appellant had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras returned the papers to enable the Petitioners to approach this Tribunal. This does not mean that this Tribunal can allow Petitioners to bypass the appeal available under Section 31 of the Air Act.

Further, this Tribunal is the Appellate Authority against any order that may be passed by the Appellant Authority under Section 31 of the Air Act. We are not a constitutional body which can bypass the appeal provided under Air Act by invoking discretionary powers against the impugned order herein, particularly in the absence of any direction from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to entertain the appeal and dispose it of on merits. We are of the considered opinion that this appeal is not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

5. However, we make it clear that it is always open to the Petitioner to file an appeal under Section 31 of the Air Act before the authority concerned and also seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the appeal filed before this Tribunal. We further make it clear that the interim order granted by this Tribunal on 18.10.2011 shall be continued for a period of one month from today and petitioner is at liberty to file appeal u/s 31 and obtain necessary orders from appropriate authority, in the meanwhile.

    (Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran)                            (Justice C V Ramulu)
       Expert Member                                      Judicial Member