NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                             PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

                                    Application No. 22 of 2011
                         Tuesday, the 28th 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:

       M/S BALAJI MINERLS
       Rep. by its Maning Partner
       R. Ramprasath
       14/22, Agraharam
       Near Indian Oil Auto Stand
       Shevapet
       Salem-636 002                                                  .....Applicant
                                           AND

   1. TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
      Rep. by its Chairman
      No. 76, Mount Salai
      Guindy
      Chennai-600 032
      Tamil Nadu

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

   3. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
      Rep. by its Asst. Engineer
      (Operation and Maintenance)
      Tneb Office, Sivanathapuram - 636 307
      Salem Taluk & District
      Tamil Nadu                                                   .....Respondents
 (Advocates appeared: Mr V Vasudevan & Mr T Harish Kumar For Appellant, Mr Presanna
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 13.8.2010.

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) after inspecting of the unit found certain deficiencies and directed the applicant to comply with the same. Since the applicant had not complied with, 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 board 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 for hearing 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 R-2 herein for power connection to the appellant's unit and also submitted a detailed representation on 13.8.2010. Along with the representation photographic proofs were also submitted. Further, the applicant sent another representation dated 15.9.2010 stating that the Jaw crusher has been closed properly, that the pulverizing mill, cyclone carborator and back filter has been well connected , that the pulverizing unit is kept in a closed room, that around the unit trees are planted in a good manner and new trees are planted, that the septic tank and chock pit are in good condition, that rain water harvesting pit has been dome and rain water is collected, that all preventing measure for control of air and noise pollution been made with documentary evidence to the and requested to give consent to operate and electricity connection. A true copy of the Applicant's letter dated 13.8.2010 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A-3 (Colly) (page nos. 11-

12) and the true copy of the applicant's representation dated 15.9.2010 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A-4 (Page Nos. 13-24)".

Therefore, we directed the R-1 and 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, without keeping the application pending for a long time, we are of the opinion that the application can be disposed of with the following:

The R-1 and R-2 are directed to consider the representations made by the applicant dated 13.8.2010 and 15.9.2010 and take appropriate action by inspecting the unit and taking decision within a period of six weeks from the date of this order and communicate a copy of the decision to the applicant 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 and R-3 shall restore electricity and power supply to 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