Surendra Mohan, J.

1. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15311 of 2009 is in appeal challenging the judgment dated 20.10.2009 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

2. The appellant is a Government of India undertaking and a unit of the Indian Rare Earths Limited engaged in activities like beach sand mining, mineral separation and processing. The Company has an industrial unit at Udyogamandal. It is engaged in the extraction of Uranium from Thorium concentrate. It has been functioning for the past five decades. The activities of the appellant unit are regulated by the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (‘Atomic Energy Act’ for short). The industrial wastes generated in the factory are radioactive wastes coming within the purview of the Atomic Energy Act. Therefore, it is contended that, the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HW Rules’) do not govern the manner of disposal of such wastes. For disposal of the wastes generated by the unit of the appellant, they have the necessary authorization from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. For the purpose, they have established disposal sites within their premises in terms of the licence and plan approved by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.

3. While so, as per an order passed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.657 of 1995, a Committee called the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes (‘Monitoring Committee’ for short) was constituted for the purpose of ensuring that the directions issued by the Supreme Court from time to time in the said writ petition were implemented effectively and in a timely manner. The Monitoring Committee was given the liberty to co-opt a representative of the State Government or the State Pollution Control Board or any other person or authority as member of the said Committee, as deemed fit. The Monitoring Committee was to file quarterly reports before the Apex Court. The order appointing the Monitoring Committee is evidenced in these proceedings by Ext.P2.

4. Pursuant to Ext.P2 order, the Monitoring Committee conducted a number of visits to the State of Kerala, inspected various localities and submitted reports to the Court, as evidenced by Exts. P3, P4 and P5. The Monitoring Committee assessed the situation in Eloor, Udyogamandal and surrounding areas where large number of industries are located and assessed the gravity of the pollution that the residents were put to suffer. The Monitoring Committee noted the disastrous condition of the Periyar River which is the life line of Kerala. It was found that the river had been converted into a vast Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF). The Committee also found that the pollution was caused to a great extent by the activities of Government owned companies as well. The Regulatory Agencies like Kerala State Pollution Control Board and State officials were found to be adopting a willful and callous disregard to the directions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Monitoring Committee issued directions in Ext.P3 with the object of remedying the situation.

5. As part of implementation of the said directions, a Scheme to supply potable water to the residents of the industrial area was proposed to be implemented. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT) agreed to make available the required quantity of water for supply through pipelines. The cost for laying the pipelines was ordered to be shared by the industries in the area. Accordingly, the appellant paid an amount of Rs.35 Lakhs, recognizing its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). However, according to them, they were not polluting the Periyar River in any manner and were not liable to pay any recurring charges for the supply of drinking water. In view of the above stand taken by the appellant, the 2nd respondent Board, by a notice dated 27.4.2009 required them to show cause why the authorization issued to them under the HW Rules should not be amen