AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 309 wordsMohammed Nias. C.P.,J
This writ petition is filed to direct respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the 5th respondent and also to ensure compliance with the directions in Ext.P2.
Today the learned standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board submits that based on a complaint received from the petitioner, an inspection was conduct on 5.11.2014 and a letter was issued to the unit on 27.11.2014, Exts.P2 and P3 were issued, wherein remedial measures were directed like increase the compound wall height up to 3 meters and also to carry out loading and unloading activities using crane or other suitable means so as to reduce the sound level to 55dB(A). Later on 01.11.2022, an inspection was conducted, wherein it was noticed that the loading and unloading activities are still being carried out manually in the unit and no additional control measures are taken to reduce the sound level. Accordingly, fresh directions were issued to the unit on 04.11.2022 to comply with the Board's directions and also to apply for consent and report to the same to the office.
The statements made by the learned standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board is recorded. The 5th petitioner is directed to strictly comply with the measures instructed by respondents 1 and 2. It is also submitted by the learned standing counsel that as of now the 5th respondent do not have the consent to operate.
In such circumstances, the petitioner after complying with the remedial suggested by respondents 1 and 2 will intimate them and thereupon, the Pollution Control Board will consider the grant of consent to the 5th respondent Unit. Till consent to operate is issued by the Board, the 5th respondent will not be allowed to operate the Unit which respondents 1 to 4 will ensure.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.