- (1.) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides. We place on record our sense of appreciation of the gesture of the learned Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan in visiting the site himself and having a study conducted by Shri P. S. Rajvanshy.
(2.) SHRI K. N. Bhat, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that as the petitioners apprehended, the levels of compliance demanded from the petitioner are increasing as a reaction to the petitioner seeking judicial relief. He stated that the industries which were found within acceptable levels of pollution control till December 1993, were suddenly found unacceptable, and ordered to be closed down without a reasonable prior notice of the requirements which, according to the Board, were required to be complied with. This in itself, says Shri Bhat, renders the orders liable to be quashed and the petitioner awarded compensation. He suggested that the Board cannot now seek to invent and apply some ideal standards in the petitioner's case alone. It appears to us that without a technical opinion as to the extent of ameliorative measures required to be installed at the undertakings of the petitioners, from a competent expert, it would not be possible for the Court to resolve technical issues of the adequacy of pollution control mechanism in the factories and direct grant of permission for their recommencement. It is open to the petitioners to bring on record an opinion from an expert to indicate what are the minimal requirements for ensuring pollution control and whether such mechanism are already in position or not,
(3.) THE petitioners are at liberty to file a report on 29-3-1994, if they so choose. List on 29-3-1994 at 2.00 p.m. In the meanwhile, the Pollution Control Board is not prevented from - and it shall indeed be its duty to indicate-what, according to it, are such minimal requirements for grant of permission to re-start the industries or to permit any interim arrangements in this behalf.;