JUDGMENT M. Ramachandran, J,

1. The averments in the Original Petition indicate that the petitioners, who were residents of the Pallipuram Grama Panchayat, had been opposing the proposal of the 6th respondent to establish a Saw Mill. To a certain extent initially they were successful in preventing its erection. Taking note of the objections highlighted by them, the Panchayat had rejected the application for a licence. The 6th respondent thereafter had taken up the matter with the 5th respondent- Green Channel Clearance Committee, who had been authorised to function as the Appellate Authority in the matter of licensing. The said authority by Ext. P5 had reversed the decision of the Panchayat, since according to them, the decision was not based on any expert opinion. The Green Channel Committee also had recommended the Pollution Control Board and the District Medical Officer to issue their consent and also had decided to recommend the Pallipuram Grama Panchayat to issue licence to the 6th respondent after 14 days of the order.

2. The plea raised by the petitioners is that Ext. P5 order of the Green Channel Committee is unsustainable. The petitioners also have attacked the order of the Pollution Control Board which had come to be passed later, viz., on 21.02.2003 whereunder clearance been granted for running the unit.

3. The main contention as against Ext. P5 appears to be that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The objection is that the petitioners were not heard in the matter, nor the Panchayat, on whose orders the Committee was sitting in judgment. But the objection does not appear to be well founded. Of course the Panchayat had rejected the application for the licence. But when an appeal had been preferred, though the petitioners state that the Panchayat was not heard in the matter, the recitals in Ext. P5 indicate that the representative of the Panchayat had attended the meeting. In fact they had informed the Green Channel Committee that they have no objection in giving a licence to the 6th respondent, if the Authority recommends for the same. Thus a dispassionate approach had been shown in the matter. The question is whether the petitioners had vested rights to see that the licence was never granted and whether the authorities had discretion to examine the matter and pass orders, overruling the objections of the local residents.

4. Mr. P.B. Sahasranaman, appearing for the petitioners, put up an argument in the matter of consent and scope of the order. According to him, Ext. P4 is only a consent to establish alone. For operation of the unit, a separate consent has to be obtained. He had made available for my perusal the formalities that were to be observed in these matters, as could be seen from the literature down loaded from the Web Site of the Pollution Control Board. Of course it refers to consent to establish and consent for operation. The directions are not very clear. But it can be seen that the direction is:

"those who have obtained consent to establish need not submit application in the above forms and only needed to inform the Board in advance of the date of Commissioning and remit the required consent fee".

5. On a close examination, it is clear that the hurdles as mandatorily required, and presented by Mr. Sahasranaman are not there in the statute book. The Pollution Control Board also appears to be in two minds, while preparing the Web Site, published for general guidance. Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short the Act) provides that subject to the provisions of the section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, establish or operate any industrial plant in an air pollution control area. Sri. Sahasranaman referred to the expression "establish or operate" and with reference to the explanation given by the Board, says that at each stage permission separately is required.

6. But I fail to see Section 21 as to warrant such procedure. The expression "establish or operate have apparently been incorporated in respect of industries which were to commence functioning after the enactment came and those which were already in existence respectively. This prescription was essential when the Act came to be passed. Sub-section (2) refers to an application for consent of the State Board. After such application is filed, under Sub-section (3) the Board is to make such inquiry as it may deem fit in respect of the application for consent. Section 21(4) states that within a period of four months after the receipt of the application for consent, referred to in Sub-section (1), the State Board shall, by order in writing, and for reasons to be recorded in the order, grant the consent applied for subject to such conditions and for such period as may be specified in the order, or refuse such consent. There is nothing to indicate in support of the submission that after the consent for establishment a fresh consent for operation again is envisaged. This of course will be superfluous, since in spite of grant of such consent, adequate power is vested with the Board to vary the order for appropriate reasons. Sub-section (5) of Section 21 also refers to the stipulations under which alone the operations are to be carried on.

7. Therefore, even though Ext. P4 mentions about a consent before operation as well, such a condition appears to be unauthorised and not permitted by the statute. The argument on these lines raised by the petitioners necessarily have to be rejected.

8. The pleading does not show that the area wherein the factory has been put up is a notified area as required to be so declared under Section 19 of the Act. However, I have proceeded on the basis that the 6th respondent's establishment is situated in an air pollution control area. It cannot also be disputed that it answers the description of "industrial plant" under Section 2(k) of the Act. But nevertheless, the Green Channel Committee has arrived at a decision which is reasonable and just.

9. It has to be noticed that the possible level of pollution of a Saw Mill is comparatively harmless. The dust hardly escape outside the work area, and it has to be noticed that workers work in the factory, normally without serious health hazard. The attempt of the Act is to curb pollution by gases and fumes which diffuse in the breathing air, which have more direct and adverse impact on the health condition of living beings. It is to be noticed that the Green Channel Committee while passing Ext. P5 order was aware of the conditions, functioning as an expert body. When industrialisation is there, one cannot escape from pollution of the atmosphere and water. The attempt is to see that minimum injury is there, when industrial activities are permitted. It may not be possible for one to go back to the conditions that were available centuries back and the approach should be realistic and pragmatic. When onions are to be cut, it is difficult to hold back tears, but its taste is the compensation.

10. In the circumstances, when an entrepreneur comes with a project, the idea should be to encourage him to start the activities, ensuring that it is eco-friendly as far as possible and in conformity with the statutory prescriptions. A total ban, for example, with deference to the wish of neighbourhood may not be a sound policy. The attempt is to strive for ensuring better quality of life. It will be suicidal if a negative approach alone is adopted.

11. The Original Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.