IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 PRSENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY W.P.No. 27029 of 2007 & W.P.No. 27600 of 2007 W.P.No. 27029 of 2007 Between:- M/s. Saleem Metal Industries, Rep., by its Proprietor Mohd. Haroon Ansari, Hyderabad and others. Petitioners. And The State of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Industries &Commerce (Mines.II) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. Respondents. W.P.No. 27600 of 2007 Between:- M/s. Saleem Metal Industries, Rep., by its Proprietor Mohd. Haroon Ansari, Hyderabad and others. Petitioner. And The State of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Industries &Commerce (Mines.II) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY W.P.No. 27029 of 2007 & W.P.No. 27600 of 2007 Oral Common Order: (Per: The Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) These two writ petitions are by Stone Crushing Units. W.P.No. 27029 of 2007 assails the proceedings of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (for short ‘the Board’) and in particular the 6th respondent dated 29-11-2007 communicating the decision of the Board directing closure of the petitioners’ Stone Crushing units for several reasons recorded in the said order. W.P.No. 27600 of 2007 seeks a declaration of the inaction of the respondents in particular respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in considering the applications of the petitioners for grant of necessary consent to run their units is arbitrary and in violation of their fundamental rules guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 (1) (g)and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Board issued proceedings (impugned in the W.P.No. 27029 of 2007) directing closure of the petitioners’ units. Inter alia the orders state that when the Board officials inspected the units, the units were seen operating without consent of the Board; Bunkers were provided to collect the product and dust; screens were not covered with MS sheets; water sprinklers were not provided; dust emissions were observed from entire operations of the plant and stone dust depositions were observed in the surroundings of the plant. The order of closure was provided by a notice dated 23-11-2007 proposing action for commencing operations of the unit without providing control systems. An opportunity for hearing was also provided and a hearing said to have been held on 27-11-2007. Eventually, the order of closure was passed and the petitioners were also sensitized as to the potentiality of the prosecution if they failed to close the unit as directed. The petitioners do not assert that they have obtained consent for operations or even for establishment of unit as warranted under the provisions of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short ‘the Act’) and in conformity with the statutory requirements inter alia Section 21 of the Act, as amended by Act 47 of 1987. The petitioners have been afforded an opportunity by way of show cause notice, but have failed to establish the legitimacy of their operations. In respect of W.P.No. 27600 of 2007, the petitioners who are Stone Crushing Units, have generically pleaded that they have complied with all conditions and had also applied to the Board for grant of consent for operations. In paragraph No. 14 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioners assert to be submitting applications to the respondents, in particular respondent Nos. 5 and 6 periodically for grant of consent for operations and also assert that these respondent Nos. 5 and 6 neither rejecting nor accepting applications for consent. In any event the petitioners cannot operate, what are clearly air pollution generating industrial units, without obtaining consent under the provisions of the Act. In any event what is the relief sought herein is only a direction to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to dispose of the petitioners’ applications for grant of consent for operations in accordance with the provisions of the Act. No response on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is discernable in the papers in the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the cases pertaining to the two writ petitions, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions as follows: No infirmity, substantive or procedural, in the orders of the closure passed by the Board (subject matter of W.P.No. 27029 of 2007) is discernable. Principles of natural justice have been complied with and there is a clear and demonstrable status of the polluting nature of the petitioners’ units and their operations without obtaining consent for operations as warranted under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act for over one and half decades for such illegal operations of the petitioners’ units pursued. In respect of W.P.No. 27600 of 2007 it is represented by Sri Srinivasa Murthy, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that as on date the petitioners’ units have closed their operations and moved out of the area in question. In the circumstances no further orders are required. If however the applications of the petitioners for grant of consent for operations is pending and have not been disposed of by the Board, the Board shall consider and dispose of the applications and communicate the decision to the petitioners expeditiously. On the analysis and conclusions above, W.P.No. 27029of 2007 is dismissed and W.P.No. 27600 of 2007 is disposed of in the light of the observations recorded herein above. No costs. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY Dated: 16-12-2009 Pvks/*