JUDGMENT B.C. Basak, C.J., S.N. Jha and N. Ray, JJ.

1. Reference may be made to the earlier order passed in the coal case. This case involves manufacture of cement. The petitioners have got a cement factory. In this case, a document has been produced before us issued by Cement Manufacturers' Asssociation addressed to all members of the Association. We are told by Mr. Dayal appearing for the petitioners that this is a body having its members the owners of all cement factories throughout India. Let the xerox copy of this document be kept as part of the records of this case. The copies of the same be supplied to the learned Counsel concerned. This arises out of the statement made by the Minister of Environment and Forests before the Rajya Sabha on 4th March, 1992 pointing out the Government have proposed certain actions against the polluting industries. As a matter of fact, this statement of the Hon'ble Minister made before the House has now taken the shape of a Statutory Rules under Sections 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and amending Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. It is common case before us that these rules are applicable in the case of the petitioners and others manufacturers similarly situated, where they are governed by Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In Rule 3 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 after Sub-rule (5), the following sub-rule has been added, namely:

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Sub-rule (3), an industry, operation or process which has commenced production on or before 16th May, 1981 and shown adequate proof of at least commencement of physical work for establishment of facilities to meet the specified standards within a time-bound programme to the satisfaction of the concerned State Pollution Control Board, shall comply with such standards latest by the 31st day of December, 1983.

Therefore, it is clear from these rules as modified, that there must be a time-bound programme to the satisfaction the concerned State Pollution Control Board for compliance of such standards latest by 31st day of December, 1992. It is on the basis that if adequate proof is shown that at least commencement of physical work for establishment of facilities to meet the specified standards within a time bound programme has been commenced, that such opportunity for compliance is extended till 31st December, 1992. On the facts and circumstances of this case, it is admitted that the application for consent order under Section 21 has not been allowed, but in view of the order of this Court, the manufacturing work is going on. We direct the appropriate authority i.e. Board, to consider the question of giving consent order to the petitioners. If they are satisfied that such physical work has been started, then if there is no other bar, by any other provisions of law, they are bound to grant such consent. However, if there is any provision which is not complied with or if the Board is not satisfied to that effect, the Board shall be entitled to reject such application. However, before rejection of such application, a personal hearing is to be given to the representatives of the Association. So far as the petitioners' case is concerned, they must be given personal hearing and the matter is to be decided by 31st May, 1992 by passing a final order giving reasons. Till 31st May, 1992, the petitioners shall continue the manufacturing business, but thereafter it would depend on the position stated above. They will not continue after 31-5-1992 unless such consent order is given.

2. We dispose of this application accordingly. Let it be made clear that we have not otherwise gone into the merits of the first case and that this order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

3. We should also place on record that Mr. Dayal submitted that his client has a very small unit and it is not possible on their part without having any technical staff, to carry out such programme on its own. The Board is not bound to provide such staff. However, if in order to implement the provisions of the said Act, which has been enacted under an Internationational Treaty, if any advice of the State Board is sought for, then we are quite sure that the Board would provide such assistance advice if it is possible for them to do so for the greater interest of the nation.

4. Let copies of the order be handed over to the parties.