M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in letter dated 8.1.2005 issued under the signature of Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Ranchi directing the petitioner to close down its Unit.
(2.) PETITIONER is an Industry, manufactures Iron and Steel Ingot and also CTD Bar and Rods since 1978. Petitioner -Unit was granted consent by the Bihar Pollution Board as required under Sec.21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 for the period till 31.12.1999. Thereafter, every year such consent was granted and last consent granted by the Bihar Board was up to 31.12.2001. After the creation of Jharkhand Pollution Control Board, petitioner applied for consent, which was granted till 31.12.2002. Petitioner thereafter, applied for further consent but the same was not granted because of the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. It is contended by the petitioner that time -to -time inspections were carried out in the factory and all the directions issued by the authorities of the Board have been complied with. Inspite of that the impugned order for closure of the Unit has been passed. Mr. B. Poddar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner informed the authorities of the respondent -Board that it has engaged another consultant to conduct study of environment status. Thereafter, petitioner submitted Environment Management Plan prepared by the said consultant -firm. Petitioner also informed the authority regarding steps taken for installation of fume extraction systems and regularization of the system. But inspite of that consent was not granted and the impugned order was passed for closure of the Unit.
(3.) MR . A.K. Sinha, learned Advocate General at the very outset submitted that the impugned order of the authorities of the Board are appealable before the Appellate Tribunal duty constituted under the said Act and therefore, in view of the statutory remedy available to the petitioner, the instant writ application can not be entertained. Learned counsel further submitted that inspite of non grant of consent after 2002 petitioner carried out business. Consequently, the Board had no option but to issue the direction for closure of the Unit.;