R.S.Garg, J.

1. This letters patent appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, being aggrieved by the order dated 15-9-2003 passed in CWJC No. 4122 of 2003 (reported in 2004 (1) Pat LJR 25) whereunder the learned single Judge has held that the decision to reject, the writ petitioners application was based on a ground which had no application to the case. The learned single Judge after quashing the Boards decision dated 13--5-2003 required the appellant to reconsider the writ petitioners application.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the writ application are that the original petitioner Hiranand Stone Works is a proprietorship firm and is owned by Nand Kishore Tekriwal. The petitioner firm is registered as small scale industry unit having its registration No. 3-1-02643 -PMT-SSI dated 30-11-1982. The petitioner after being registered as SSI with financial assistance of Bihar State Financial Corporation, established a stone crusher for manufacturing stone chips at village Pakartalla. According to the petitioner, the original respondent Bihar State Pollution Control Board (for short Board) asked the petitioner firm to obtain its consent under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (In short Air Act) for running its unit and the petitioner accordingly applied for grant of consent. Vide Order dated 22-2-1990 the Board granted conditional consent under Annexure 2 (to the writ petition). Thereafter, it is submitted, the petitioner regularly applied for grant of consent and compiled with the conditions put by the Board from time to time and last of such consent was given on 29-7-2000 asking the petitioner; (a) to construct 12 high wind breaking wall around the unit within the consent period; (b) the crushing and screening sections shall be housed properly; (e) the water spraying shall be done at crushing and loading points; and (d) tree plantation shall be done and maintained.

3. The petitioner was served with a notice issued by the respondent Assistant Engineer on 29-11-2001 calling upon the petitioner to submit an application for consent along with compliance report. According to the petitioner, he submitted an application form with compliance report and prescribed fee on 20-12-2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with order dated 14-5-2002, issued by the Member Secretary, informing the petitioner that the conditions put vide consent order dated 29-7-2000 having not been complied with, the application for renewal of the consent stands rejected. The copy of the order is dated 14-5-2002 and is Annexure-5 to the original writ application. The petitioner, however, took exception to the said communication and vide its letter dated 28-5-2002 informed the respondent that he had complied with the conditions, therefore, consent may be granted. The respondents vide their letter dated 12-8-2002 informed the petitioner that even from the petitioners letter dated 28-5-2002 it was clear that the petitioner had not compiled with the condition and hence it was not possible to consider his application for consent. After service of the said letter, the petitioner again on 13-11-2002 submitted an application in prescribed form along with the fee stating therein the complete coverage of crushing and screening area, construction of 12 high wall and plantation were done. He also informed that work of spraying water has also been completed and as such consent be given. The application of the petitioner is Annexure 8 to the original writ application. The petitioner again was served with memo No. 100 dated 27-2-2003 informing the petitioner that from letter dated 11-7-2002 of the President of the Board, it would be clear that the petitioner was running the unit without consent, therefore, he should show cause as to why proceedings be not initiated for closure of the crusher. The petitioner submitted his reply and inform