There should be positive approach by the authorities for consent order.

The Chief Justice:

The petitioner prays for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for quashing the dated 22-11-2004 passed by the respondent and to grant 'Air Consent Order' under Sec.21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and 'Water Consent Order' under Sec.25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to enable the petitioner to operate the Electroplating Plant after conducting the inspection of the Electroplating Plant and the Effluent Treatment Plant and based on the No Objection Certificate dated 22-3-2002.

2. Heard Shri T.S. Sivagnanam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri T. Murugesan, learned senior counsel/Government Pleader for Pondichery.

3. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of bi-cycle parts and automobile spares and their business activities are spread throughout the country, particularly at Faridabad. They established a unit at Pondichery for the purpose of manufacture of cycle-rims and sheet metal pressed and fabricated parts to cater to the needs of the southern area of the country.

4. During December 2001, since Electroplating Plant was the essential part of the manufacturing process, the petitioner applied for No Objection Certificate from the respondent Board and submitted all the details regarding the effluent discharge and Effluent Treatment Plant. On 7-1-2002, the petitioner again explained to the respondent the effect of the Treatment Plant and reiterated that the Treatment Plant meets the Pollution Control norms.

5. It is stated in the affidavit that based on the request made by the petitioner, the respondent by order dated 6-2-2002 granted No Objection Certificate for establishment of the industry without electroplating plant. The petitioner once again emphasised the necessity of the electroplating plant in their manufacturing process and requested No Objection Certificate for setting up the electroplating plant in their industry. The respondent by order dated 22-3-2002 granted No Objection Certificate to establish the unit with electroplating plant and the said certificate was valid for a period of one year from 22-3-2002. The petitioner applied to the respondent on 14-5-2002 for issuance of 'Air Consent Order' and 'Water Consent Order' for the electroplating plant. Petitioner also informed the respondent about the setting up of the Effluent Treatment Plant and the provision of Acid-proof tiles and dust collector with stack and also the epoxy coating to ensure zero seepage of effluent water. The respondent by order dated 3-9-2002 granted Air Consent Order and Water Consent Order to operate the plant but without electroplating unit. The petitioner then represented to the respondent stating that while granting No Objection Certificate for establishing the unit the respondent by order dated 22-3-2002 had granted permission for electroplating operations also. However, the respondent by order dated 11-3-2004 once again granted renewal of Air and Water Consent Order without electroplating process, which was valid up to 31-8-2004. The renewal application submitted by the petitioner for Air and Water Consent Order is still pending with the respondent.

6. The petitioner made another representation to the respondent on 29-9-2004 requesting permission to run the electroplating plant as they would be running the plant with zero discharge and adopting the forced evaporating technique. The petitioner was called upon to attend the meeting at 10.30 a.m. on 26-10-2004 and it is alleged that though the representative of the petitioner was present at the venue by 10.30 a.m., he was not called inside the meeting hall and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent, by order dated 5-11-2004, rejected the request of the petitioner to run the electroplating plant.

7. It is further averred in the affidavit that the Effluent Treatment Plant establishe