ORDER Markandey Katju, C.J.

1. The petitioner prays for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for quashing the dated 22-11-2004 passed by the respondent and to grant 'Air Consent Order' under Sec. 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and 'Water Consent Order' under Sec. 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to enable the petitioner to operate the Electroplating Plant after conducting the inspection of the Electroplating Plant and the Effluent Treatment Plant and based on the No Objection Certificate dated 22-3-2002.

2. Heard Shri T.S. Sivagnanam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri T. Murugesan, learned senior counsel/Government Pleader for Pondichery.

3. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of bi-cycle parts and automobile spares and their business activities are spread throughout the country, particularly at Faridabad. They established a unit at Pondichery for the purpose of manufacture of cycle-rims and sheet metal pressed and fabricated parts to cater to the needs of the southern area of the country.

4. During December 2001, since Electroplating Plant was the essential part of the manufacturing process, the petitioner applied for No Objection Certificate from the respondent Board and submitted all the details regarding the effluent discharge and Effluent Treatment Plant. On 7-1-2002, the petitioner again explained to the respondent the effect of the Treatment Plant and reiterated that the Treatment Plant meets the Pollution Control norms.

5. It is stated in the affidavit that based on the request made by the petitioner, the respondent by order dated 6-2-2002 granted No Objection Certificate for establishment of the industry without electroplating plant. The petitioner once again emphasised the necessity of the electroplating plant in their manufacturing process and requested No Objection Certificate for setting up the electroplating plant in their industry. The respondent by order dated 22-3-2002 granted No Objection Certificate to establish the unit with electroplating plant and the said certificate was valid for a period of one year from 22-3-2002. The petitioner applied to the respondent on 14-5-2002 for issuance of 'Air Consent Order' and 'Water Consent Order' for the electroplating plant. Petitioner also informed the respondent about the setting up of the Effluent Treatment Plant and the provision of Acid-proof tiles and dust collector with stack and also the epoxy coating to ensure zero seepage of effluent water. The respondent by order dated 3-9-2002 granted Air Consent Order and Water Consent Order to operate the plant but without electorplating unit. The petitioner then represented to the respondent stating that while granting No Objection Certificate for establishing the unit the respondent by order dated 22-3-2002 had granted permission for electroplating operations also. However, the respondent by order dated 11-3-2004 once again granted renewal of Air and Water Consent Order without electroplating process, which was valid up to 31-8-2004. The renewal application submitted by the petitioner for Air and Water Consent Order is still pending with the respondent.

6. The petitioner made another representation to the respondent on 29-9-2004 requesting permission to run the electroplating plant as they would be running the plant with zero discharge and adopting the forced evaporating technique. The petitioner was called upon to attend the meeting at 10.30 a.m. on 26-10-2004 and it is alleged that though the representative of the petitioner was present at the venue by 10.30 a.m., he was not called inside the meeting hall and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent, by order dated 5-11-2004, rejected the request of the petitioner to run the electroplating plant.

7. It is further averred in the affidavit that the Effluent Treatment Plant established by the petitioner is a zero discharge plant and fully complied with the standards prescribed by the respondent. The petitioner has invested Rs.8,00,000/- for establishing the Effluent Treatment Plant and with a view to keep the plant in working condition the petitioner is compelled to heat the solution and feed the oxygen as a dummy process. The petitioner sent letters dated 10-11-2004 and 16-11-2004 again praying for the consent order to operate the electroplating plant. Thereafter, the petitioner sent another representation on 17-11-2004 reiterating the request for grant of consent to operate electroplating plant.

8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent and we have perused the same. In paragraph 5 of the counter, it is alleged that the claim of the petitioner that there would be no discharge of Chromium and Nickel in the course of forced evaporation said to be adopted by the petitioner is not correct. It is further stated that the No Objection Certificate does not permit the petitioner to operate the electroplating unit. In paragraph 12, it is stated that the petitioner's unit was inspected by the scientists on 18-11-2004 and during the inspection it was found that the petitioner was carrying out the electroplating operations. Therefore, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 22-11-2004 calling upon the petitioner to stop the un-authorised electroplating operations and to show cause as to why the petitioner's unit shall not be closed. It is alleged that effluent discharge in the course of electroplating contains heavy chemicals like Chromium and Nickel and it is against the policy of the Government to encourage environment-friendly industries and non-polluting units.

9. On the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner's representation dated 10-11-2004, 16-11-2004 and 17-11-2004 should be decided by the respondent at an early date. We are of the further opinion that in deciding such applications for grant of Air and Water Consent Orders, the authorities concerned must have a positive approach towards business and industry and should not reject such applications on hyper-technical or minor grounds. Although, we would not like to interfere with the discretion of the Pollution Control Board authorities in such matters, as they are experts in such matters, we feel it necessary to observe that the national-interest requires promotion and encouragement of business, commerce and industries. Unless authorities like Pollution Control Board, etc. have a positive approach in encouraging the expansion of industries, the country will not achieve the goal of rapid industrialization which is the main aim of the nation today.

10. We have already pointed out in our judgment in 'Sethu Samudram Shipping Canal Project' case (W.P. No. 33528 of 2004, delivered on 20-12-2004, that the national-interest requires rapid industrialization of the country as that alone will enable us to eradicate poverty and unemployment and other social evils and will win us respect in the comity of nations. Today the real world is cruel and harsh. It respects power not poverty or weakness. Power and strength comes from a high degree of industrialisation. As long as our country remains poor, we cannot command respect in the comity of nations and it is for this reason that we must keep the national object always in mind and never lose track of it. The authorities concerned must, therefore, not discourage the setting up or expansion of industries on hyper-technicalities or on minor grounds.

11. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off finally.