IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 54 OF 2008 M/S. JAIN UDYOG ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. L. Dharwadkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni and Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mrs. Norma Alvares, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for Respondents No. 4 to 8. Coram:- R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 6th February, 2008 ORAL ORDER: Having heard the matter at considerable length of time, it was ultimately submitted on behalf of the respondent no.2 that the respondent no.2 will withdraw the impugned order and will issue a fresh show cause notice, in detail, in relation to all the aspects and issues in question, pertaining to the petitioner's industrial establishment and after hearing the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 and other affected parties, will pass a detailed reasoned order, taking appropriate decision in the matter. This exercise would be done positively within six weeks from today. Whatever decision the Board would take in the matter, will not be given effect to for a period of three weeks from the date of communication of the order in that regard to the petitioner and respondents herein. 2. The petitioner, as also the respondent no.3, have fairly consented to the said arrangement and have assured the Court that they will render necessary co-operation in getting the matter disposed of by the respondent no. 2, as expeditiously as possible. 3. We accept the statements made on behalf of the parties, and, accordingly, direct the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate decision by following the procedure as stated above positively, within six weeks from today. Needless to say that the decision shall be taken bearing in mind uniform policy which is required to be adopted in relation the industries which are sought to be established in the State of Goa, as also bearing in mind the statutory provisions of law applicable to such establishments and the industries in the State, including the Central Legislations and more particularly in relation to environmental aspects. In case of non-compliance of such provisions in relation to any other establishment, necessary action is also expected from the competent Authorities after hearing the parties to be affected. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on any of the issues sought to be raised in this petition. All the issues are kept open. 4. As regards the appeal which was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6/10/2006 before the Administrative Tribunal and considering the order dated 10/10/2006, and the point as to whether the petitioner ought to have taken leave prior to filing of the appeal in view of the said order of 10/10/2006, need not be considered in view of the statement made on behalf of the Board that the Board would issue fresh show cause notice and hear the matter afresh and pass appropriate order. The learned Advocate for respondent no. 3 has also stated, and as confirmed by Advocate for the respondent no. 2, that at present there is no consent granted for operation of the plant, and unit is not functioning. Needless to say also that the statement made on behalf of the petitioner in Misc. Civil Applications, which were disposed on 20/11/2007, also will not preclude the petitioner from taking appropriate steps in accordance with the decision that the Board may take. 5. With these observations, and with the directions stated herein above, the petition is disposed of. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH