BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                     SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

                  APPLICATION No. 8 of 2012 (SZ) (THC)
               (W.P. No. 16971 of 2012, High Court of Madras)



In the matter of:

Shri N. Purushothaman
No. 10/74, North Muniyappan Koil Street No. 1
Karungalpatti
Salem - 6                                                       .. Applicant



                                  VERSUS

1)   The Commisioner
     Corporation of Salem
     Salem.

2)   The District Collector
     Salem.

3)   The Member Secretary
     Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
     Guindy
     Chennai

4)   The District Engineer
     Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
     No. 1/276, Meyyanar Main Road
     Siva Towers, 2nd Floor
     Meyyannur, Salem -4.

5)   Mr. Ramamoorthy
     No. 8/76, North Muniayappan Koil Street No. 1
     Karungalpatti
     Salem - 6.                                            .. Respondent(s)

Counsel for the applicant:

Shri S. Karthikeyan, Advocate 1 Counsel for the respondents:

M/s. Abdul Saleem and S. Saravanan, Advocates for respondent No. 1, M/s. M.K. Subramanian and M.R. Gokul Krishnan, Advocates for respondent No. 2, Shri A. Ilango, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Shri K. Devaprasad, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

ORDER/JUDGMENT PRESENT:

Ho'nble Mr. Justice Dr. P. Jyothimani Judicial Member Hon'ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran Expert Member Dated: August 12, 2013 Justice Dr.P.Jyothimani, Judicial Member

1. We heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as for the respondents. This application has been filed by the applicant for a direction against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to consider his representation in respect of the running of the Yarn Twisting unit run by the 5th respondent in his business place at No. 8/76, North Muniyappan Koil Street No.1, Karungalpatti, Salem-6 by using either weaving machines or cell phone towers, etc.

2) By our earlier order dated 24.7.2013, we have observed that if the application for consent filed by the 5th respondent is pending before the 3rd and 4th respondents, there is no bar for the 3rd and 4th respondents to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. Now it is brought to the notice of this Tribunal by Shri A. Ilango, the learned 2 counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board that, in fact, the Pollution Control Board has passed the consent order on 6.8.2013 and the 5 th respondent has produced a copy of the original consent order, a reading of which shows that the consent has been given upto 31.3.2014 under the Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

3) It is seen that in the consent order under Air Act, the noise level has been restricted at 55 dB(A) between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. and at 45 dB(A) between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. That apart, under Water Act, many other conditions have also been incorporated. The condition in the Air Act also makes it very clear that the 5th respondent shall ensure that the DG set at the terrace (for Cell Phone Tower) is not operated and shall take steps to remove the DG set. We have also directed that the 5 th respondent shall not use the DG set at any time and in fact the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent has undertaken that the he shall remove the DG set in the terrace after informing the agency who has installed the Cell Phone Tower. The 5th respondent, who is also present as party in person, undertakes to remove the DG set forthwith.

4) The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that in as much as the consent order has been passed on 16.8.2013, a copy of the said order be given to him to enable him to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent agrees to give a copy of the consent order to the counsel for the applicant so that he can file an appeal. 3

5) It is made clear that in order to enable the applicant to move an appeal before the said Appellate Authority effectively, the 5th respondent shall not operate the unit as per the consent order till 19.8.2013. In the meantime, it is open to the applicant to move the Appellate Authority, Pollution Control and obtain any interim order as may be given by the Appellate Authority, Pollution Control. It is also made clear that if, by 19.8.2013, the applicant fails to obtain any interim order, it will be open to the 5th respondent to act as per the consent order dated 6.8.2013 of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

6) If the agency who has erected the Cell Phone Tower, M/s. Indus Tower, is aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, it is open to them also to approach the said Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

7) With the above directions, the application stands disposed. No costs.

Justice Dr. P. Jyothimani (Judicial Member) Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran (Expert Member) Chennai 12.8.2013.

4