BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Application No. 179 of 2013 (SZ)
In the matter of:
M/s. Balamurugan Rice Mill rep. by its Proprietor Velu S/o Karuppa Mudaliar Devapandalam Post Sankarapuram Taluk Villupuram- 606 002
.. Applicant
-versus-
1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy Chennai – 600 032 2. The District Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Villupuram
.. Respondents
Legal Practitioners appearing: For the applicant.. M/s. S. Selvaraj, Lakshmikanthan and M. Selvaraj, Advocates. For the respondents.. Shrimathi Rita Chandrasekar, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Present: 1. Hon’ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam Judicial Member 2. Hon’ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran Expert Member
1
ORDER/JUDGMENT
Date: 24th October, 2013
Hon’ble Justice Shri M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member The counsel for the applicant and also for the respondents are present. This application challenges an order of closure made by the proceedings of the respondents on 19.07.2013 and also seeks to restore the power supply given to the rice mill of the applicant. The pleaded case of the applicant is that the applicant is running a modern rice mill in the name and style of M/s Balamurugan Modern Rice Mill situate at 55/68,A, Tirukovilur Main Road, Devapandalam Post in Villupuram District
which is indulging in hulling of paddy, boiling, drying, shelling, polishing
operations etc. The Wife of the applicant is also running another rice mill in the name and style of M/s Selva Murugan Modern Rice Mill in the same compound in which the applicant’s rice mill is run. Both the rice mills of the applicant and his wife have the same electric service connection. Following an inspection made by the officials of the 2nd respondent Board, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 17.5.2012, whereby it was stated that the rice mill of the applicant is run without any consent and action was initiated.
Not satisfied with the reply of the
applicant the 2nd respondent Board issued a closure order on 19.07.2013 which is the subject matter of challenge in this application. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that though the order of closure is challenged by the applicant in this application, an application for consent to operate the unit was made by the applicant before the 2nd respondent and as such
2
the applicant is not running the rice mill and he also undertakes not to operate the rice mill till the application made by him is considered and orders are passed there on by the 2nd respondent Board. Suitable direction in this regard might be given to the 2nd respondent Board. 3. The Tribunal heard the counsel for the Board and the above factual position is admitted by the Board. It is also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that in so far as the rice mill being run by the wife of the applicant, the Unit is carrying on its operation with due consent issued by the 2nd respondent Board and the same is also being operated by taking the electrical energy from the only one service connection available within the compound for both the rice mills. Hence the counsel for the applicant made a request that the electrical service connection now available with M/s Selva Murugan Modern Rice Mill should not be disturbed and a suitable direction in this connection has also to be given. Admittedly, both the rice mills run by the applicant and the other run by the wife of the applicant are situated in the same compound.
It is also admitted by the Board that the rice mill being run by the
applicant’s wife in the name and style of Selva Murugan Modern Rice Mill is being run with proper consent from the Board and the electrical service connection available in the compound is common for both the units. 4. As could be seen above, the closure order was issued by the Board in respect of the applicant’s rice mill following a show cause notice and also reply placed by the applicant. It is quite clear that the applicant was carrying on the activities in the rice mill without the consent of the Board which the applicant should have obtained. Though the applicant had challenged the order, in view of the above circumstances he is not pressing for the relief. But, it is submitted by the counsel that an application
3
for consent to operate was placed before the Board, the 2nd respondent and the same has got to be considered. 5. Without going into the merits or otherwise all the application, it would suffice to issue a direction to 2nd respondent to consider the application of the applicant for running his Balamurugan Modern Rice Mill on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the application for running the rice mill of the applicant on merits and in accordance with law and pass order within a period of one month here from. The application is disposed of with the above direction. No cost.
Justice M. Chockalingam Judicial Member
Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran Expert Member Chennai, 24th October 2013
4