T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

1. These two writ petitions, involving the common issue and the same question of fact, filed by the same petitioners against the same respondents, ore taken up for disposal by a common judgment and order.

2. Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 1153 of 2005 and respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 644 of 2006 as well as Mr. Yangyai, Learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. L. Jayanta Singh, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 1153 of 2005 and respondent No. 2 in WP(C) No. 644 of 2006.

3. The reliefs sought for in the WP(C) No. 1153 of 2005 are for a direction/issuing a writ of mandamus/issuing appropriate writ for closing or ceasing or banning M/s. Shitova Tyre Retreading Centre set up and run by the pro forma respondent No. 5, Shri Ningombam Dwijamani Singh, for violation of the provisions of (i) The Factories Act, 1948 and the rules framed thereunder, (ii) The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the rules framed thereunder and also (iii) the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the rules framed thereunder and those of the WP(C) No. 644 of 2006 are for quashing and setting aside the impugned inspection report dated 9.1.2006 in respect of the M/s. Shitova Tyre Retreading Centre and also the impugned consent order dated 13.1.2006, issued by the Member-Secretary, Manipur Pollution Control Board under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 for a period ending with 12th day of January 2007. Since the facts leading to the filing of the two writ petitions, i.e., WP(C) No. 1153 of 2005 and WP(C) No. 644 of 2006 are similar, WP(C) No. 644 of 2006 is referred to for factual matrix in this judgment.

4. Factual backgrounds of WP(C) No. 644 of 2006:

The petitioners are the residents of the homesteads abutting to M/s. Shitova Tyre Retreading Centre and also the other homesteads just nearby the M/s. Shitova Tyre Retreading Centre. The said industry/M/s. Shitova Tyre Retreading Centre was set up right in the middle of the locality of the petitioners. While operating the industry M/s. Shitova Tyre Retreading Centre, smoke arising from the burning of waste materials comprising mostly of synthetic rubber is polluting the air in the locality of the petitioners and loud noise is also coming from the said industry M/s. Shitova Tyre Retreading Centre while operating it. The noise and smoke arising from the said Industry/Retreading Centre are not only polluting the area around the said Industry/Retreading Centre and thereby endangering the lives and well-being of the petitioners as well as the other people living in the vicinity of the said Industry/Retreading Centre, but also affects the physical well being of the infants and young ones. Breathing of the said polluted air, as a result of the operation of the said industry M/s. Shitova Tyre Retreading Centre, is hazardous to the petitioners and the persons residing in the vicinity of the said industry/Retreading Centre.

5. The Tyre Retreading Centre/Industry is included in the list of the Industry involving hazardous process as provided in the first Schedule to the Factories Act, 1948. For establishing/running of that industry licence is required from the competent authority of the Government of Manipur under Sections 6 and 85 of the Factories Act, 1948 and the rules framed thereunder read with Manipur Government Gazette Notification No. 41 dated 31.1.1996. It is also alleged that the Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers-cum-Director of Commerce and Industries, Manipur granted the permit/licence for establishment of the M/s. Shitova Tyre Retreading Centre valid up to 27.4.2007 vide order dated 28.4.2006 without following the due procedure as provided in the Factories Act, 1948 and the rules framed thereunder, the Air (Prevention and Cont