BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI R.A. No. 6 of 2013 (SZ) in Application No.95 of 2013 (SZ)
In the matter of: Mrs. Prabavathi Muthurama Reddy W/o. late K. Muthurama Reddy Thiruvarangam Old No. 23, New No. 49 Third Main Road, R.A. Puram Chennai – 600 028. ..
And 1.
The Collector Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur Pin - 602 001
2.
The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board 76, Mount Road Guindy Chennai – 600 032
3.
The District Revenue Officer Thiruvallur Thiruvallur District Pin : 602 001
4.
The Tahsildar Poonamallee Taluk Thiruvallur District Pin: 602 001
Applicant
5.
The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No. 1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore Chennai – 600 008
6.
The District Environmental Engineer Kancheepuram District Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board No. 6, Sivashanmugam Road Tambaram Chennai – 600 045
7.
M/s. Industrial Sandblasting and Painting Works Represented by Mr. B. Loganathan No. 291/8, Kannapalayam Kaithiamman Nagar Poonamallee Chennai – 600 077 --Respondent(s)
Counsel for the applicant Shri M. Venkatachalapathy, Senior Counsel for M. Sri Ram, Advocate Counsel for the respondents: M/s. M.K. Subramanian and M.R Gokul Krishnan, advocates for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Smt. Rita Chandrasekar, advocate for respondents No. 2 and 6 and Smt. S. Thamizharasi, advocate for respondent No. 7
ORDER/JUDGEMENT PRESENT : Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Chockalingam Hon’ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran _______________________________________________________________
Date: February 14, 2013 _______________________________________________________________
Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member
1) This application is brought forth seeking review of an order passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 95 of 2013 (SZ) which was dismissed on 10.10.2013 with findings that the allegations found therein were unfounded and also imposition of a cost of Rs.35,000/2)
Heard
the
learned
Senior
counsel
Shri
M. Venaktachalapthy appearing for the review applicant herein. According to the learned counsel, complaining against the 7th respondent, the industry owned by the 7th respondent was carrying on the sand blasting apart from the painting work and representations were made to the authorities on different occasions which resulted in the issuance of show cause notice by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to the 7th respondent, but the same was not disposed of. It is true that the Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal on inspection filed a report that
the 7th respondent was not carrying on the sand blasting at that time, but mistakenly time was not taken for filing objections on the report. Apart from that, the Board, shown as 2nd respondent though issued show cause notice for which reply was also given did not culminate in any order. Had these facts been brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal would not have dismissed the Application. The learned counsel would further add that the 7th respondent is carrying on the sand blasting and even for painting work the consent needed from the authorities was not obtained. Hence, the order has got to be reviewed. The Tribunal, after hearing the counsel and also the counsel for the Board and also looking into the materials, in particular the order sought to be reviewed, is of the considered opinion that the review required an order of dismissal. 3) The order is sought to be reviewed mainly on the ground that though show cause notice was issued to the 7th respondent by the Board and reply was also made, no order was made by the Board. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal and the same was also recorded in the order. The Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal gave a report which stood in support of the 7th respondent’s plea that the unit was not carrying on sand blasting work. 4) After appraising the same, the Tribunal has made the order and the next contention that the 7th respondent’s unit is again carrying on sand blasting without necessary consent from the Board cannot be a
reason to review the order made in Application No. 95 of 2013(SZ). There cannot be any impediment for the applicant to seek the remedy if available and if so advised. The Review Application is dismissed and all the connected M.As are closed. No cost.
Justice M. Chockalingam Judicial Member
Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran Expert Member Chennai February 14, 2014
