- (1.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of the respondent, TNPCB whereby a closure order dated 09.12.2014 in the proceedings No. T1/TNPCB/F.41171/ERD/2014 -1 was served on the appellant's dyeing unit. The fact of the case of the appellant in short is briefed below:
(2.) THE appellant is the proprietor of the dyeing unit namely, M/s. Shivashakthi dyeing, engaged in manufacturing dyed cotton yarn. The Appellant has obtained Consent to Operate on 21.10.1999 under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act) and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act) from the 1st and 2nd respondents, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), after satisfactorily complying with all the conditions imposed by the TNPCB. The unit was in operation without any complaint from any corner and Consent to Operate was being renewed periodically and the appellant was diligently complying with all norms and conditions, from time to time, prescribed by the TNPCB and other statutory authorities. The Appellant's unit comprised of a factory and an Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP). The land on which the ETP constructed was taken on lease, for that purpose, in the year 1999 by the appellant from one, Mr. Shanmugham who has clandestinely sold the said land in the year 2007 to one, Mr. Prabhu, son of Mrs. Mallika Paramasivam, an influential politician and present Mayor of Erode. Immediately after the said sale, even during the subsistence of valid lease, the appellant was asked to vacate the land in use immediately. Since the appellant has not agreed for the same, he was repeatedly put to various types of harassment at the instance of the said purchasers, to give up his possession of the land which was leased out for a commercial purpose. A Suit in O.S. No. 424/2007 seeking permanent injunction was came to be filed by the appellant as against the erstwhile owner of the land and the said Mr. Prabhu which is still pending before the District Munsiff Court, Erode. The said Mr. Prabhu has also filed a suit in O.S. No. 468/2010 praying for eviction of the appellant from the leased out land. In the interregnum, the said Mr. Prabhu using his political background, had influenced the 1st respondent in the year 2012 to cancel the license of the appellant, and the 1st respondent issued a closure order on 28.10.2012 without any enquiry. The said closure order was issued overlooking all mandatory procedures and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant aggrieved by the same, approached this Hon'ble Tribunal in Appeal No. 9/2012(SZ). This Hon'ble Tribunal after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and records was pleased to set aside the said order of closure by its order dated 28.02.2013 and directed the respondents to issue renewal letter of consent to operate and give electricity supply.
(3.) THE appellant was able to get renewal of consent to operate, due to intervention of this Hon'ble Tribunal for the period 2013 -14 and for 2014 -15 which is still valid up to 30.06.2015. The appellant was implementing all the instructions of the TNPCB authorities given from time to time, without any lapse on his part. The appellant unit never exceeded the production limit of 12.5 MT per month and the discharge was only 15 KLD though the permitted limit is 50 KLD per month. An officer in charge of the 2nd respondent office visited the unit without any prior notice on 20.11.2014 at 7.30 pm while there was no Manager or Supervisors present in the unit. The 2nd respondent without asking for any explanation or question made an inspection and thereafter left the unit without furnishing an inspection report. The reason behind the surprise inspection made was not known to the appellant and even thereafter, there was no communication from the 2nd respondent. The appellant later received a closure order dated 09.12.2014 from 1st respondent which was served on him only on 18.12.2014. The said closure order seems to have been passed based on the report given by the 2nd respondent who inspected the unit on 20.11.2014, wherein the 2nd respondent has reported several violations of conditions given in the Water Act. The 1st respondent having received the report of the 2nd respondent alleging violations in the unit has not issued any show cause notice calling for explanation from the appellant, but straightaway issued the closure order dated 09.12.2014 directing immediate closure of the unit. The alleged violations are not at all true and the 1st respondent without giving any opportunity to the appellant to explain, accepted the report and proceeded mechanically as if there is an imminent danger and took the stringent step of immediate closure of the unit by invoking powers under Section 33 -A of the Water Act and also directed for the disconnection of power supply.;