IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 5.10.2010 Coram The Honourable Mr. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO and The Honourable Mr. JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition Nos.20664, 20637 of 1998, 14023 of 2003, 457, 6375 & 6376 of 2006, 1749, 5982, 5316 & 5449 of 1999 & All Connected MP's W.P.No.20664 of 1998 and WP.20637/1998:- The Southern India Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a Company registered under the Company's Act, having its office at the Indian Chamber Building, P.B. No.1208, Chennai 600 108, rep by its Secretary Mr.J.Prasad Davids ... Petitioner -Vs.- 1.Union of India, represented by its Secretary to Government Environment Department, New Delhi. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Guindy, Madras 600 032 rep by its Member Secretary. ... Respondents W.P.NO.14023 OF 2003: S.R.ETHIRAJ [ PETITIONER ] PROP.VIKNESHWARA ELECTROPLATING, KARUR - 639 003. Vs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1 THE TAMILNADU POLLUTION [ RESPONDENTS ] CONTROL BOARD 100 ANNA SALAI GUINDY CHENNAI REP BY MEMBER SECRETARY 2 THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER TAMILNADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD KARUR. W.P.457 of 2006: R. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN [ PETITIONER ] MANAGING DIRECTOR SIPCOT & SIDCO PHASE II ENTREPRENEUR FINISHED LEATHER EFFLUENT TREATMENT CO. PVT.LTD RANIPET 632 403. Vs 1 THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD CHENNAI-32. 3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD NO.473 ANNA SALAI NANDANAM CHENNAI- 35. 4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, SIPCOT, RANIPET - 632 403 [ RESPONDENTS ] W.P.6375 OF 2006 AND 6376 OF 2006 M/S. VEL TAPIOCA PRODUCTS [ PETITIONER ] REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR P. RAVIKUMAR VEERAPANDI VILLAGE SALEM TK & DIST. Vs 1 STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT CHENNAI -9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 TAMILNADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP. BY ITS MEMBER-SECRETARY 76 ANNA SALAI GUINDY CHENNAI - 32. 3 DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER TAMILNADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 1/276 MEYYANUR ROAD SALEM -6. 4 APPELLATE AUTORITY CONSTITUTED UNDER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT NO. NCB 1 P.S. KUMARASAMY RAJA SALAI CHENNAI - 28.[ RESPONDENTS ] W.P.1749 OF 1999: SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI DYE HOUSE [ PETITIONER ] REP. BY B.J. NAGLAN PROPRIETOR AMRESHWARAM - 623 701 Vs 1 THE STATE OF T.N. REP. BY ITS SECRY ENVIRONMENT & FOREST DEPT FORT.ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI.9 2 THE T.N.POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,100, ANNA SALI, CHENNAI.32. 3 THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER T.N.POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD MADURAI [ RESPONDENT ] W.P.NO.5982 OF 1999 1 M/S. YES BEE DYERS (P) LTD. [ PETITIONER ] REGISTERED OFFICE 11A PALANI STREET, GUGAI, SALEM - 636 006. Vs 1 THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION DEPT. NEW DELHI. 2 THE STATE OF T.N. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPT. FORT ST.GEROGE, CHENNAI - 9. 3 THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NEW DELHI. 4 THE T.N. STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 100 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI - 32. [ RESPONDENT ] W.P.NO.5316 OF 1999 KARUR KARUPPAMPALAYAM [ PETITIONER ] ENVIROTECH LTD. AYPIPALAYAM(PO)639 003 KARUR DISTRICT REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. Vs 1 UNION OF INDIA REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTNEW DELHI. 2 STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9 3 T.N.POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP BY ITS MEMBER SECY 100 ANNA SALAI GUINDY, CHENNAI - 32 .. RESPONDENTS W.P.5449 of 1999: 1 THE KARUR TEXTIULE MANUFACTURER EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION NO.29-C/1 PUGALUR ROAD, KARUR 639 001. [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 THE U/INDIA REP BY SECY TO GOVT MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION NEW DELHI. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVT ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPT FORT ST. GEORGE CH-9. 3 THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NEW DELHI. 4 THE TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ANNASALAI CH-32. [ RESPONDENTS ] WP.No.20664/1998:- Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.213, Environment and Forest Department dated 30.03.1989 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the third respondent to consider applications for consent from Industries made from time to time without prejudice to the said Government Order. WP 20637 OF 1998:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance to writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms.127, Environment and forest Department dated 8.5.1998 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent consider the applications for consent submitted by the Industry from time to time without reference to the said G.O. WP 14023 OF 2003:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance to certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent passed in Proc.NO.T4/TNPCBD/F10930/KAR/RS/W/2002-1 dated 28.5.2002 and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the consent application from on submission without reference to G.O.M.S.No.213/E&F dated 30.3.1989. W.P.457/2006: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.M.S.No.127, Environment and forest (SC.III) Department, dated 8/5/1998 and the consequential order in letter NO.15981/EC3/2003-9 dated 2.8.2005 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and further a direct the respondents herein to consider the application for consent by the proposed 11 tanneries who are members of the petitioners CETP Company without reference of the said G.O. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.6375 2006: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of declaration, declaring the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1 Environment control department dated 6.2.1984 G.O.Ms.No.213 Environment and forest (EC-I) Department dated 30.3.1989 and G.O.M.S.No.127 Environment and forest (EC-3) Department, dated 8.5.1998 as amended by G.O.(1D) No.223, Environment and forest (EC-3) department, dated 2/9/1998 are arbitrary illegal and uttravires the provisions of the water (prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Art.14, 19(1)(9) and 21 of the constitution of India. WP 6376/2006: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent herein in his Letter No. DEE/TNPC BD/SLM/F.No.C.1824/OS/2005 dated 19.4.2005 as confirmed by the order dated 3.11.2005 of the Appellate Authority made in Appeal No.53 of 2005 and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents herein to consider the application dated 18.4.2005 of the petition for consent on merits keeping in view the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. WP 1749/1999: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.213 dt. 31.3.1989 and G.O.No.127 dated 8/5/98 and to quash the same and also to direct the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to device the norms to be followed by various classes and categaries of the industries in the State of T.N.as defined under the provisions of the water (P &CP) Act 1974 under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 forthwith. WP 5982/99 and WP 5316/99: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the orders passed by the second respondent State Govt. of T.N.in G.O.Ms.No.127 (Environmental Forest Department) dated 815/98 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s.G.R.Associates in W.P.Nos.20664 & 20637 /1998 Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Kasirajan, in W.P.No.457 / 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran, in W.P.No.6375 & 6376 / 2006 Mr.R.Ravi, in W.P.No.14023 / 2003 Mr.P.Sundaram, in W.P.Nos.1749, 5982 & 5499 / 2003 Mr.R.Ravi, in W.P.No.14023 / 2003 For Respondents : Mr.R.Ramanlal, for TNPCB & Mr.L.S.M.Hassan Fizal, G.A, for T.N.Govt., in W.P.Nos.20664 & 20637 /1998, 457 / 2006, 6375 & 6376 / 2006, 14023 / 2003. Mr.R.Ramanlal, for TNPCB Mr.K.M.Venugopal, SCGSC, for R1 Mr.Dhesingh, Spl.G.P., for R2 in W.P.Nos.1749, 5982, 5499, 14023 / 2003. C O M M O N O R D E R ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J W.P.No.20664 of 1998 has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.213, Environment and Forest Department dated 30.03.1989 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the third respondent to consider applications for consent from Industries made from time to time without prejudice to the said Government Order. 2. W.P.No.20637 of 1998 has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash G.O.Ms.No.127, Environment and Forest Department dated 8.5.1998 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the third respondent to consider the applications for consent submitted by the industry from time to time without reference to the said Government Order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. W.P.No.14023 of 2003 has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceeding of the first respondent dated 28.5.2002 wherein a direction has been issued to close the petitioner unit immediately and direct the respondents to consider the consent application form on submission without reference to G.O.Ms.No.213 Environment and Forest Department dt.30.3.1989. 4. W.P.No.457 of 2006 has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash G.O.Ms.No.127, Environment and Forest Department dated 8.5.1998 issued by the first respondent and the consequential order dated 2.8.2005 and direct the respondents to consider the application for consent by the proposed 19 tanneries who are the members of the petitioner's CETP Company without reference to the said Government Order. 5. W.P.No.6375 of 2006 has been filed for a writ of Declaration declaring that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1, Environment control Department, dt.6.2.1984, G.O.Ms.No.213, Environment and Forest Department dt. 30.3.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.127 Environment and Forest Department dt. 8.5.19198 as amended by G.O.(1D) No.223, Environment and Forest Department dt. 2.9.1998 as arbitrary, illegal and ultravires the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. W.P.No.6376 of 2006 has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the third respondent dated 19.4.2005 as confirmed by the appellant authority by order dt.3.11.2005 in Appeal No.53 of 2005 and direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 18.4.2005 for consent on merits keeping in view the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 7. W.P.No.1749 of 1999 has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.213 dated 31.03.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.127 dated 08.05.1998 and to quash the same and also to direct the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board to device the norms to be followed by various classes and categories of the industries in the State of Tamilnadu as defined under the provisions of the Water (P & CP) Act, 1974 and under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 forthwith. 8. W.P.No.5982 of 1999 has been filed for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the State Government of Tamilnadu in G.O.Ms.No.127 (Environment and Forest Department) dated 08.05.1998. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. W.P.No.5316 of 1999 has been filed for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in G.o.Ms.No.127, Environment and Forest Department dated 08.05.1998 and quash the same as far as the petitioner is concerned. 10. W.P.No.5449 of 1999 has been filed for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the State Government of Tamilnadu in G.O.Ms.No.127 (Environment and Forest Department) dated 08.05.1998 and to quash the same. 11. The short facts set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in W.P.No.20664 of 1998, in a nutshell are stated hereunder: (a) The petitioner was incorporated in the year 1910 with the objects to promote and protect trade, commerce and manufacturers of India or any part thereof. The Government of Tamil Nadu had issued G.O.Ms.No.213, Environment and Forest Department dated 30.03.1989 imposing restrictions on locations of industries within one kilometre from the embankment of rivers, streams, dams etc. It is not known under what provisions of law, the said Government Order has been issued by the State Government. When the Vellore Citizens Forum matter was being heard before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the attention of the above said G.O appears to have been drawn to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement in the said case had directed the authorities to strictly implement the G.O referred to above. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had no occasion to consider the validity of the said G.O viz., whether the State Government had power to issue such a direction in the light of the fact that the said power is vested with the Union of India under Section 3 of the Environmental Protection Act read with Rule 5 of the Environmental Protection Rules. Hence there is no bar in law to consider the validity of the said notification. (b) While so, recently another G.O. has been issued by the State of Tamil Nadu, wherein the scope of G.O.Ms.No.213 has been extended by the said G.O viz., G.O.Ms.No.127, Environment and Forest Department dated 08.05.1998, that there shall not be any industry of the red category within five kilometres of certain rivers mentioned in the said notification. The notifications dated 30.03.1989 and 08.05.1998 are ultra vires of the Constitution and therefore invalid. It violates the fundamental rights of the members of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1) and Article 21 of the Constitution, besides being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the G.O.Ms.No.213, Environment and Forest Department dated 30.03.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.127, Environment and Forest Department dated 08.05.1998, issued by the second respondent and to consequently direct the third respondent to consider applications for consent from Industries made https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from time to time without reference to the said Government order. 12. With the same prayer the writ petition No.20637 of 1998 has also been filed. 13. Writ Petition Nos.457 of 2006 has been filed by the SIPCOT and SIDCO Phase II Entrepreneur Finished Leather Effluent Treatment Company. The facts set out in the said writ petition in a nut shell are stated hereunder: (a) The petitioner was incorporated in the year 1993. It had applied for consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as required under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for the discharge of treated effluent from the petitioner's Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) on 28.12.1994 for treating the effluent received from 40 member tanneries, including 19 proposed member tanneries. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board issued consent to the petitioner, before the issue of G.O.Ms.No.127, Environment and Forests (EC III) Department, dated 08.05.1998 which prohibits certain highly polluting industries including tanneries within 5 Km from the banks of the Palar river. After completion of construction of the CETP, consent to operate the same was issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 09.03.2002 for discharging 1560 KLD of treated effluent, which includes the effluent from proposed 19 tanneries. However, the Chairperson of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in his letter dated 21.08.2002, requested the petitioner's CETP company not to permit the proposed member units into the Common Effluent Treatment Plant conveyance system at any cost. (b) The petitioner in its letter dated 19.12.2003 requested the Chairperson, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to permit the 19 proposed member units so that the CETP would be technically and financially viable. A writ of Mandamus was also filed before this Court in W.P.No.1066 of 2005, to consider and pass orders on its representation. This Court by order dated 19.01.2005 directed the Government and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to consider the petitioner's representations in accordance with law. However, the Government in its letter dated 02.08.2005 informed the petitioner that in view of G.O.Ms.No.127, it is not possible to issue consent to the proposed member units of Common Effluent Treatment Company, since they are located within 5 Kms radius of Palar river. Thus, the petitioner has approached this court challenging not only G.O.Ms.No.127, Environment and Forest (E.C.III) Department, dated 08.05.1998 but also the Government letter dated 02.08.2005 referred to above and further directing the respondent to consider the application for consent in respect of the proposed 19 tanneries. 14. Writ Petition No.14023 of 2003 has been filed by one S.R.Ethiraj, Proprietor of Vikneshwara Electroplating setting out the following facts. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) The petitioner along with few others started a business in the name and style of Vikneshwara Electroplating and Steel Furnitures. He has obtained provisional certificate of registration as a small scale tiny unit from the District Industries Centre under Directorate of Industries, Government of Tamil Nadu. They had periodically applied to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Karur for extension of supply to their unit. Meanwhile, a show cause notice was issued by the District Environmental Engineer, Karur by letter dated 05.02.2001, calling for explanation as to why his unit should not be closed down basically on the ground that it is a highly polluting industry operating within 1 K.M radius of water sources as prohibited under G.O.Ms.213 dated 30.03.1989. A suitable explanation was offered by the petitioner by his letter dated 12.03.2001 to the said show cause notice. While so, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had issued closure order dated 28.05.2002 without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said proceedings dated 28.05.2002 and further directing the respondents to consider the consent application form without referring to G.O.Ms.No.213. 15. W.P.Nos.6375 and 6376 of 2006 were filed by one Vel Tapioca Products represented by its proprietor P.Ravikumar, challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 19.04.2005 as confirmed by the order dated 03.11.2005 of the Appellate Authority made in appeal No.53 of 2005 and to consequentially direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 18.04.2005, for consent. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions that, (a) The petitioner company is establishing a small scale industry at Veerapandi Village to manufacture Starch from tapioca. The petitioner unit proposes to manufacture 41 tonnes of Starch / Sago per month using tapioca as raw material. G.O.Ms.No.213 Environment and Forest Department, imposed total ban to set up highly polluting industries within one kilometre from the embankments of the water sources mentioned in Annexure-II of the said order. The State Government expanded the scope of the ban by increasing the prohibited distance to 5 Kms from 1 Km through its G.O.Ms.No.127, Environment and Forest Department, dated 08.05.1998. Though the State Government did not specifically mention the names of the tributaries of river Cauvery, Thirumanimuthar would not certainly be termed as a tributary of river Cauvery. (b) While so, the application of the petitioner's unit was rejected by the second respondent herein on the sole ground that it is located at a distance of 1.85 Km from Thirumanimuthar which is claimed to be a Tributary of Cauvery River by the respondents 2 and 3. Hence, the petitioner has to approach this court by filing the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16. The common averments made in W.P.Nos.1749, 5982, 5316 and 5449 of 1999 are as follows:- (a) The petitioners are engaged in the dyeing industries as small entrepreneurs. Most of the industries are even now developed by their location in the land space where supply of water is easily available. In practice, the effluents are discharged through the drainage of the house connecting the public sewage provided by the local authority and taken to the terminal where the common effluents of the village or town is treated by the local authority itself and the treated water is utilised by the local authority itself for appropriate public purpose. The effluents discharged in the dyeing activity are not diverted to any well or any water source utilised by the members of the public. (b) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act came into force in the year 1974 and the Environment Protection Act came into force in the year 1986. Both Acts are intended to prevent pollution to water to be caused by any industry. Applying the provisions of these legislations, the Government of India had classified the Industries into 3 categories viz., Red, Orange, Green. So far, the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, the Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.Ms.No.213 dated 31.3.1989 promulgated an order prohibiting installation of any high polluting industry within a distance of 1 kilo metre from any notified water source. Now, by another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.127 dated 8.5.1998, the prohibition has been now extended to a distance of 5 kms. (c) Challenging the said Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.127 dated 8.5.1998, the petitioners have come up with these writ petitions. 17. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent in W.P.No.457 of 2006, which is set out here under: (a) In G.O.Ms.No.213, Environment and Forest Deparment, dated 30.03.1989, the Government has imposed a total ban on the setting up of the Highly Polluting Industries mentioned in Annexure-I, within one kilometre from the embankments of the water sources mentioned in Annexure-II to that order. Subsequently, in G.O.Ms.No.127, Environment and Forest Department, dated 08.05.1998, the Government prohibited setting up of highly polluting industries within 5 Kms from the embankments of river Cauvery and its tributaries. In view of the same, the consent sought for by the petitioner was not granted. (b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 2715 = 1996 (5) SCC 647 (Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum vs. Union of India and others), directed the Government to strictly implement G.o.Ms.No.213, dated 30.03.1989 and that new industry shall not be permitted to be set up within the prohibited area. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the State Government that the authorities shall review the cases of all industries which are already https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ operating in the prohibited area and it is open to the authorities to direct relocation of any such industries. After passing final orders on 28.08.1996, the cases were transferred to this Court. In the final order, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India have issued comprehensive directions. At that time, the 22 proposed units have not filed their application for consent of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. In the mean while, the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.127 have issued orders imposing a total ban of setting up of the highly polluting industries within 5 Kms from the embankment of the river Palar. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is duty bound to enforce the G.O. in letter and spirit. (c) Though, it is true that semi-finished to finished leather operations would be generating less pollution in comparing to the raw to finished operations, it also contains pollution which will affect the environment. Even the treated effluent from the petitioners CETP is not meeting the standards. In the Status report furnished to the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, only 18 member units, among the 40 member units of the said CETP that carried out wet process tannery operations have been included. The remaining 22 proposed member tanneries of the CETP company have not obtained consent for establishment to carry out wet process tannery operations from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and are located within 5 Km radius of Palar river, thus attracting the provisions of the orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No.127 dated 08.05.1998. The directions were given by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 18(1)(b) of the said Central Act 6 of 1974. The State Government has got revisional powers under Section 29(1) of