Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 4 docs
Section 21 in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 22 in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Madras High Court
Thirumoorthy vs The Tamilnadu Pollution Control ... on 19 July, 2017
        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
											
Dated:19.07.2017

Coram
								
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
					AND
	     THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

W.P.No.13229 of 2006 and
W.M.P.No.14842 of 2006
Thirumoorthy						.. Petitioner				
Vs.
1.The Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,
   rep. By its Member Secretary,
   Anna Salai, Chennai  32

2. The District Environmental Engineer,
    Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,
     68, Aanoor Amman Complex,
    Sathy Road, Erode  3

3. The District Collector, Erode District
    Erode  11

4. K.A.Karuppusamy				        ..Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to take action against the 4th Respondent herein for causing Air Pollution in the process of burning of coconut shells in his industry, by exercising the power conferred under Sections 21 and 22 of the Air (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or under Section 133 of Crl.P.C., or under any other law time being in force. 
		For Petitioner 	    	 : Mr.S.Lakshmanasamy

		For Respondents 		 : Mrs.RitaChandrasekaran
						   For R1 and R2
						   Mr.K.V.Dhanabalan for R3
						   Special Govt. Pleader
						   for R4- No appearance.					  

O R D E R 

[Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J.] Today, when the matter has been listed under the caption 'For Orders', there is no representation on the side of the Petitioner through Learned Counsel or In-Person. Further, yesterday, namely, on 18.07.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, on that day also, there was no representation on the side of the Petitioner either through Learned Counsel or in-Person. However, there was representation on the side of the Respondents 1 and 2 not only on 18.07.2017, but also today, namely, on 19.07.2017 and today, on behalf of the 3rd Respondent, Learned Special Government Pleader appears. In respect of 4th Respondent, notice was not ready and therefore, there is no appearance on the side of 4th Respondent.

2. Inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner in the main Writ Petition seeks relief only against the Respondents 1 to 3, to take necessary action against the 4th Respondent, for causing Air Pollution in the process of burning of coconut shells in his industry, by exercising the power under Sections 21 and 22 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or under Section 133 of Crl.P.C., or in other law time being in force, the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 / Pollution Control Board has filed a Memo on 18.07.2017 before this Court in the present Writ Petition interalia to the effect that on the basis of complaint made, a show cause notice was issued as per proceedings dated 22.09.2006 and pursuant thereto, an inspection was carried out on 29.12.2006 and further, on inspection, it was found that the Unit was operating without following any Air Pollution Control Measures. Apart from that, the Unit had no consent from the Pollution Control Board. Besides the same, by virtue of proceedings dated 25.06.2007, a closure direction was issued to the Unit.

3. This Court, on a mere running of the eye over the contents of Memo filed, is of the considered opinion that the 2nd Respondent had categorically made mention in the Memo dated 18.07.2017 that necessary instructions were obtained from DEE, namely, District Environmental Engineer, Erode District to the effect that the Unit was not in operation for the past 10 years and there is no other activity in the said land.

4. Recording the aforesaid fact, this Court closes the Writ Petition, as nothing survives for adjudication. It is made clear that the Memo filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent dated 18.07.2017 before this Court shall form part and parcel of the record of the Writ Petition, namely, W.P.No.13229 of 2006. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

						      (M.V., J.)      (P.D.A., J.)
							       19.07.2017



Index		:Yes / No 
Internet	:Yes / No

ssd				






To

1.The Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,
   rep. By its Member Secretary,
   Anna Salai, Chennai  32

2. The District Environmental Engineer,
    Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,
     68, Aanoor Amman Complex,
    Sathy Road, Erode  3

3. The District Collector, Erode District
    Erode  11

M.VENUGOPAL, J.
and
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

ssd










W.P.No.13229 of 2006 and
W.M.P.No.14842 of 2006











19.07.2017