1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.13019 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 P.Thirupathi ... Petitioner Vs. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, rep.by its Assistant Environmental Engineer, No.5, Perumal Koil Street, Geetha Mahal 1st Floor, Sivagangai. ... Respondent Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order of the respondent, dated 29.09.2011, passed in his proceedings Ka.No.Oo.Su.Soo.Pori.Sika.Ko.Pugar 2011 and quashing the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondent : Mr.C.Elaman for TNPCB ORDER [Order of the Court was made K.N.BASHA, J] Mr.C.Elaman, learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, takes notice for the respondent. By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission itself. 2.The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings of the respondent, dated 29.09.2011, by which the respondent directed the petitioner, who is running a flour mill, to carry out certain measures to control emission of pollution, based on a complaint given by one M.Sabir Mohammed, dated 21.09.2011. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner on mere presumption and even without conducting any enquiry, on the basis of the complaint preferred by one M.Sabir Mohammed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very same complainant, namely M.Sabir Mohammed, preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.12115/2011 and this Court passed an order on 21.10.2011 directing the respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 to consider the complaint, by affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the said Sabir Mohammed and thereafter to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame. It is contended that the said Sabir Mohammed has not brought to the notice this Court about the impugned order, which was passed on 29.09.2011, while disposing of the writ petition on 21.10.2011 and as such, the impugned order passed, without affording an opportunity and without notice to the petitioner, is liable to be set aside. 4.Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that this Court had already passed orders on 21.10.2011 directing the respondent to consider the complaint of one Sabir Mohammed, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the said Sabir Mohammed and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks. It is submitted that the time limit fixed by this Court is still available i.e. four more weeks are available to complete the said exercise. 5.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side and perused the impugned order dated 29.09.2011, including the order dated 21.10.2011, passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.12115 of 2011. 6.At the outset, it is to be stated that the impugned order, dated 29.09.2011, was passed by the respondent on the basis of the complaint preferred by one Mr.M.Sabir Mohammed and the said Sabir Mohammed preferred W.P.(MD)No.12115 of 2011 and at that time, the impugned order was not brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, this Court passed the order dated 21.10.2011 directing the respondent herein to consider the complaint preferred by the said Sabir Mohammed and pass orders, by giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the said Sabir Mohammed, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is seen that the time limit fixed by this Court is yet to expire and a further period of four weeks time is available to the respondent for considering the complaint and thereby the interest of both the parties, namely the complainant Sabir Mohammed and the petitioner is protected. Under such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 29.09.2011, is liable to be set aside on the ground that the said order was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, merely on the basis of the complaint preferred by the said Sabir Mohammed and the matter is to be remitted back to the respondent for considering the complaint of the said Sabir Mohammed, as per the directions of this Court in the order dated 21.10.2011 made in W.P.(MD)No.12115 of 2011. 7.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, this Court is of the view that a further time of four weeks may be granted to the respondent from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the date of receipt of a copy of this order to consider the representation of the said Sabir Mohammed, by giving an opportunity to the said Sabir Mohammed as well as to the petitioner herein and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly the said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(A.S) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Assistant Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.5, Perumal Koil Street, Geetha Mahal 1st Floor, Sivagangai. Order in W.P.(MD)No.13019/2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:16.11.2011 gb SMA/23.11.2011/2C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/