$ENG£EBEMH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR‘ gas.) WRIT PETITION NO. T163 /2005' ’ EETITIONER /: Radha Madhav Industries Private Limited , through it’s Director R.K. Agrawal, s/o ' Ramkis’hore‘ Agrawl * aged about W55 , years, r/o In front of High Court‘ Bilaspur / (C.G.) VerSUS / : 1. Chhattisgarh Environmental Conservation _ M Board, through Chief Engineer " i and OSD,Raipur(C.G.) 4 2. Regional T MOf‘ficer,‘ Chhattisgarh rEnvironme’nt Conservation Board, Regional. Officer, Vyapar 7 w Vihar, Biiaspur (C.G.) r 3. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board , thorugh ‘ Chief Engineer, Tifra, Biiaspur ’Vw/EETVTHQN xm$ER ERTHALIE (C G ) éécy GP 5‘4§iw~ ' 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITION§§ amw \ 3 w w aimnmr ma: $t§t¢ ¢£ aihat’EkQ’n grh 211mm?» $39k! eewr. :yiiaspur' (mad . ‘ XI—HC—22 16-8-20§5 Shri N. L. Soni with Shri Alok Bakshi, counsel fcr the petitioner. Shri Ch Ramu Satyanaraya, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri A.S~. Gaharwar, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.4. Heard. - The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner factory is engaged in of 30,000 MT per annum. r espondents No.1 issued a Ietter to petitioner on 15-4-2004 regarding g producing sponge iron to the exten permission to estabiish the spon Annexure-P/S. After obtaining the wrote a ietter to respondente N .1 stating that» the permission .for production should be granted to the . Copy of the same is Annexure-PM. On 5-1-2005, the petitioner wrote ietterto respondent No.1 intimating him about the steps taken by the p titioner. However, without considering the submissions of the petitioner. r pondents had issued a letter on 27-1- e 'iron plant. ‘Copy ‘of the same is ditional permission, the petitioner 2005 asking the petitioner for cios re of the plant under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of P liution) Act, 1981. ln the said letter 15‘ r days’ time was allowed to the petiti ner to raise objection. In response to that, the petitioner submided a repr sentation dated 9-2-2005 (Annexure- P/7)‘ steting’that the order for E5 . has been piaoed and an advance payment to the tune of Rs.3,20,00 l- has been made. However, prayer was rejected by respondents. Ther ore, prayer has been made to quash 0" ” ' the impugned order dated 4-3-2005 nd time up to 30‘" June 2005 may be granted to the petitioner for installa on of the equipments as per the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) ct. 1981. n . XI—HC—22 WWW aF ed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Learned counsei for the-p titioner' submitted that even though time was granted to the petitioner an the petitioner is making sincere effort to instali ESP. and 65% work ha already been completed on the site and the remaining work will be c0 pleted by 15m September 2005. The petitioner is not going to seek any > Therefore; with the conse t of learned oounsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of. ’in Viewi of the above, Barve Return has already been fl petitioner is allowed to complete establishment of E.S.P. equipm nts and other equipments as has been required under the Air (Preventi n and Control of Pollution) Act. 1981 by 15'“ September’2005. No furth r time will be allowed. if the ESP. and othef equipments are not ins lied by 15‘" September 2005, then respondents No.1 to 3 will be entitled to take such measure as is admissibie to them under the law In the meanwhile. interim order shall continue till 15‘“ September 2005. The writ petition is dispose in view of the above. ai disposed of. Parties are entitled for certii Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge further time. of aocordingly. i the pending applications also stand ied cop§r of this order. .\-‘ (unwise) . e