The Court emphasized the importance of considering public interest and carefully assessing the consequences of pollution before granting consent for industrial operations, and the need for comprehensive measures to address pollution and protect the environment.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 17333 of 1995 dated 17/07/1997.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record we are satisfied that the matter before the High Court was one of public interest and required an in-depth examination by the Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, it appears to us, failed to appreciate the true significance of the matter regarding the need to arrest the unabated pollution, which had become a health hazard and environmental enemy because of discharge of objectionable effluents from the distillery into Bhavani River and adjoining areas. The High Court fell in error to dispose of the writ petition merely on the consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Matters like this, which involve greater public interest should not normally be decided merely on consent of the Pollution Control Board. We are somewhat unhappy about the manner in which the Pollution Control Board gave its consent unmindful of the grave consequences, which have been amply demonstrated before us. The order of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. We accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and remand the writ petition to it for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, certain affidavits and undertakings were filed on behalf of the industry, respondent No. 6, and on 29/01/1998 we gave certain directions including the direction for the closure of the operation of the Industry (respondent No. 6) on or before 2/02/1998 because of continuing pollution from its distillery and sugar division. We also directed inspection of the industry and the site adjacent to it by NEERI, who was also asked to submit a report to this Court whether the pollution control devices have been installed by the industry and proper steps taken to control pollution in accordance with the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter Act) or not. NEERI was also directed to inspect the surrounding areas with a view to assess damage, caused due to discharge of effluent by the Industry and to indicate the cost of restitution.

( 5 ) PURSUANT to the directions issued by us on 29/01/1998, NEERI has submitted two reports. The first inspection report was submitted on 9/03/1998 and the second on Ist May, 1998. We have perused those reports and since we are remanding the writ petition to the High Court for its disposal, it appears appropriate to us, to request the High Court to consider those reports and the suggestions made therein while passing orders in the Writ Petition from time to time.

( 6 ) MR. Venugopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Industry, submits that remedial steps have already been taken as suggested by this Court as well as by NEERI and that Pollution Control Devices have been fixed and effective steps taken to prevent pollution of water and the Industry may, therefore, be permitted to operate.

( 7 ) MR. Harish Salve, learned amicus curiae on the other hand submits that all steps required to check pollution have not been taken and in support of his submission, relies upon the two reports submitted by NEERI to this Court. THE High Court may, therefore :1. Consider in consultation with NEERI, whether the Industry may be permitted to have a test run or become operational and, if so, with what further safeguards and/or remedial measures to be taken. For this purpose NEERI shall appear before the High Court of Madras and inform the Court regarding the viability of the Industry starting either the test run or its operation. The High Court may, thereafter, pass appropriate orders regarding the lifting of the ban on operations which was imposed by this Court on 29-1-1998. 2. The High Court may also direct supervision by any of the agencies inclu