NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI


                                Application No. 5/2012
                         Wednesday, the 8th day of February, 2012


Quorum:

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

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


B E T W E E N:

Sri Lakshmi Minerals
Rep. by its Proprietor,
A.Lakshmanan,
D.No. 11/20 Near Railway Gate,
Bodinaickanpatti Road,
Sivadaparam-Post,
Salem-636 307                                                .......       Applicant


A N D:

1.   The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
     Rep. by its Chairman
     76, Mount Road, Guindy
     Chennai-600 032

2.   The District Environmental Engineer
     Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
     1/276, Meyyanur Main Road
     Salem- 636 004

3.   The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
     Rep. by its Asst. Engineer
     (Operation and Maintenance)
     TNEP Office, Sivanthapuram- 636 307
     Salem Taluk & District                                  .......       Respondents
                                        ORDER

(Order delivered by the Bench) This application is filed seeking a direction to the Respondents to inspect the unit of the Applicant and to consider the representation made by it to the Respondent No. 2 on 10.06.2011 and 11.07.2011 for grant of consent to operate the Unit.

It appears that by an order dated 31.05.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 1, the Unit of the applicant was directed to be closed and further directed the Respondent No. 3 to stop supply of electricity, purported to be Under Section 31-A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and Under Section 33-A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. The applicant has not availed any appeal as provided under the respective Acts. However, it had made two representations requesting the Respondent No. 2 to inspect the Unit and to grant letter of consent, after visiting the unit, as per law. Though no appeal is filed against the order dated 31.05.2010 the above mentioned representations were filed after rectifying the defects pointed out by the authorities under the said Acts earlier. Now, the grievance of the applicant is that the said representations were not considered by the Respondent No. 2, till date.

When we expressed doubt as to maintainability of this very application in this shape, the Learned Counsel Shri P. Prashanth representing Shri T. Harish Kumar, Advocate vehemently submitted that though no appeal is filed against the order dated 31.05.2010, since the representations filed by the unit are not considered by the Respondent No. 2, a substantial question arise under section 14 of the NGT Act, and the unit is closed for a long time causing economic loss and the men employed are without any job now. Therefore, this application is maintainable.

We are afraid, we may not be able to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel Shri P. Prashanth. Whether appeal is filed or not against the order of the Respondent No. 1 dated 31.05.2010, this application is not maintainable seeking a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to dispose of representation filed on 10.06.2011 and 11.07.2011. Further, no substantial question of law relating to environment had arisen as contemplated under section 14 of the NGT Act. May be the applicant has rectified the defects pointed out earlier, which were the basis for the closure of the unit.

Under these circumstances, the application is disposed of at admission stage with the following direction:

a) the applicant to approach the Respondent No. 2 seeking disposal of his representation dated 10.06.2011 and 11.07.2011 and it is always open for the Respondent No. 2 to dispose of the said representations as expeditiously as possible, as per law.

b) the applicant is also at liberty to file an appeal against the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 31.05.2010, if he is so advised and it is always open for the appellate authority to consider the same as per law, including the limitation aspect of the matter.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

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