NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                            PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

                                   Application No. 23 of 2011
                        Tuesday, the 28th day of February, 2012

Quorum:

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

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

B E T W E E N:

       M/S MAHARAJA MINERLS
       REP. BY ITS MANING PARTNER
       N.JANAKRAJAN
       135/10-B, KATTUR ROAD
       SIVADHAPURAM
       SALEM-636 307                                              .....APPLICANT

                                          AND

   1. TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
      REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
      NO. 76, MOUNT SALAI
      GUINDY
      CHENNAI-600 032

   2 THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
     TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
     1/276, MEYANNUR MAIN ROAD
     SALEM - 636 004

   3 THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
     REP. BY ITS ASST. ENGINEER
     (OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE)
     TNEB OFFICE, SIVANATHAPURAM - 636 307
     SALEM TALUK & DISTRICT                                         .....RESPONDENTS
 (Advocates appered: Mr . V. Vasudevan & Mr. T. Harish Kumar for Appellant, Mr Prasanna
 Venkat for Respondent No. 1 & 2).




                              JUDGMENT

(Judgment delivered by bench) This application is filed seeking to direct the Respondents to inspect the applicant's unit and permit the applicant to operate the unit which was closed on 25.6.2010.

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) after inspecting the unit found certain deficiencies and directed the applicant to rectify with the same. Since the applicant had not complied, the TNPCB invoked its power under Section 31-A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and directed to close down the unit and directed the Assistant Engineer to stop supply of electricity with immediate effect.

It appears the applicant had made several representations requesting the TNPCB to re- inspect the unit since he had complied with the deficiencies pointed out earlier. As there was no response, this application is filed.

The application had come up on 18.10.2011, 23.11.2011, 18.12.2011. On 19.1.2012 reply was filed by R-1 and R-2. However, they failed to reply para 10 of the Application No. 22 of 2011 which reads as under:

'' The applicant requested the Respondent No. 2 herein for power connection to the appellant's unit and also submitted a detailed representation on 25.06.2010. Along with the representation photographic proofs was also submitted. A true copy of the Applicant's latter dated 25.06.2010 is annexed hereto marked as Annexure A-3 (Page No.19-20).

Therefore, we have directed R-1 and R-2 to inspect the Unit of the applicant and submit a fresh report on or before 15th February 2012. On 15.12.2012 also there was no report submitted by R-1 and R-2. Even today no such report is forthcoming. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that without keeping the application pending for a long time, the application can be disposed of with the following:

R-1 and R-2 are directed to consider the representation dated 26.06.2010 made by the applicant and take appropriate decision after inspecting the unit within a period of six weeks from the date of this order and communicate the decision to the matter on or before 10.4.2012.

If for any reason, R-1 and R-2 do not act upon and take a decision as directed above, the applicant is at liberty to operate the Unit. If the decision made is against the applicant, he may work out remedies as available under the law.

.

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