BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Appeal No. 115 of 2013 (SZ) and M.A.Nos. 244 and 267 of 2013
IN THE MATTER OF: M/s. Sai Annapoorna Bio Proteins Pvt. Ltd. Rep. By its Managing Director Sri Vemuri Sham Prasad KFDC Compound, Baithkol Karwar, Uttara Kanna District
....
Applicant(s)
AND 1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Rep. By its Member Secretary Parisara Bhavan No.49, Church Street Bangalore-560 001
2.The Deputy Commissioner Karwar Uttara Kannada District
3. The Tahsildar Karwar Uttara Kannada District
4.The Managing Director HESCOM Navanagar Hubli-25 5.The Director of Factories Department of Factories & Boilers Industrial Safety & Health 2nd Floor, ITI Compound Bannerghatta Road Bangalore-560 029 ...
Respondent(s)
Counsel appearing for the Applicant: Shri Kamalesh Kannan Shri Subramanian and Shri Sai Satya Jith
Counsel appearing for the Respondents: Shri M. Thirunavukkarasu and Ms. M. Swanalatha for R-1, R-4 and R-5 Shri Devaraj Ashok for R-2 and R-3
ORDER PRESENT: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE Dr. P. JYOTHIMANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE PROF. Dr. R. NAGENDRAN, EXPERT MEMBER Dated 6th February, 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------By consent of both the parties the appeal itself has been taken up for hearing. The contention raised in the appeal is that the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Board) took note of the dispute between the appellant and his brother with regard to the ownership of the property and thus to run the unit and
the
application for renewal of consent has been rejected on that ground. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that while it is true that there has been some dispute between the appellant and his brother, by virtue of an order passed by the competent court the dispute has been settled. According to him, a memo of compromise has been filed between the appellant and his brother and the competent court of law has also recorded the same and there is no dispute as on date. The appellant makes it clear that he is entitled to run the unit
even though the unit has been stopped and sealed as on date as per the order of the Board. Considering the above facts and circumstances and to meet the ends of justice, we are of the view that the appellant should be permitted to file an affidavit within a period of one week from today on the above facts by serving the copy on the learned counsel appearing for the Board. On the appellant
serving such a copy of the
affidavit to the learned counsel for the Board, the appellant is entitled to proceed with the rectification of the defects pointed out by the Board and also any other condition stipulated by the Board. On completion of the rectification, it is open to the Board to make a physical verification and pass appropriate order in the manner known to law. With the above said direction, the impugned order stands set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Board for passing an appropriate order in terms of the direction given above. After filing of the affidavit stated above, the Board shall permit the appellant by handing over the key to him only for the purpose of carrying out the rectification and not for making any commercial production. With the above terms, the appeal is disposed of. The Miscellaneous Application. Nos. 244 and 267 of 2013 are also closed. No cost.
