S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the direction contained in Reference No. 1665 dated 31.05.2013 and the direction contained in letter dated 14.08.2013, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner namely, Rashi Polypack carries on business of manufacturing prior to Plastic Manufacture, Sale and Usage Rule, 1999 came in force. The petitioner made an application on 09.05.2011 for registration under Rule 9 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. The petitioner was earlier granted "consent to operate" under Section 21 of the Air Pollution Act and Section 26 of the Water Pollution Act and the said order was valid upto 31.03.2012. Seeking renewal of "consent to operate", the petitioner deposited requisite fee alongwith application prior to expiry of the "consent to operate" order. However, vide letter dated 27.04.2013, the petitioner was directed to submit application in Form -I and II, which was replied by the petitioner on 06.05.2013. Without considering the reply of the petitioner that the petitioner has already made application on 09.05.2011 for registration under Rule 9 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, the Regional Officer -respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to stop production till registration from the Board is granted. On 14.08.2013, the respondent No. 2 was informed that the application for registration under 2011 Rules would be considered only after the conditions mentioned in "consent to operate" are fully complied with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the one hand, the respondents are insisted upon registration under the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 for renewal of "consent to operate" and on the other hand, the respondents are not processing the application seeking registration under the 2011 Rules. It is further submitted that under Rule 9(E) of the 2011 Rules, the State Pollution Control Board is under a duty to dispose of the application seeking registration within 90 days however, the application dated 09.05.2011 submitted by the petitioner has not been disposed of till date. It is thus submitted that the respondents are not justified in denying renewal of "consent to operate" on the ground of non -registration under Rule 9 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent -State Pollution Control Board refers to the impugned letter dated 31.05.2013 (Annexure -4) and submits that the said letter indicates that the petitioner has not submitted application for registration under the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. Since, registration under the 2011 Rules is mandatory, the respondent No. 3 has rightly directed the petitioner to stop production till the registration is granted by the Board.;