Violation of natural justice at the original stage cannot be cured by the appellate stage. The Pollution Control Board should have extended an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before revoking the consent order.

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the common order of the first respondent dated 07.05.2008, passed in Appeal Nos. 26 and 27 of 2008.

2. The petitioner is stated to be engaged in the manufacture of PVC in Plant-II and Caustic Soda / Chlorochemicals in Plant-III. It is also stated to have Captive Power Generation capacity consisting of 7 Nos. of LSHS (Low Sulphur Heavy Stock) fired oil engines which has got combined generating capacity of 48.5 MW and those power generation units are stated to supply power and steam to the petitioners complex in Mettur Dam with which the plants at Mettur are being operated. The second respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Pollution Control Board’) is stated to have granted consent to the petitioner under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Air Act), in its proceedings dated 111. 1998, for operating the industrial plant (Plant-III) and similar consent has also been issued under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called as the ‘Water Act’) to the said plants.

3. It is stated that such consent was being extended from time to time and was renewed upto 31.03.2008. It is also stated that the said consent also covered the power generating units with LSHS viz., diesel operated generating units. According to the petitioner, in its caustic soda plant it had employed the Mercury Cell Technology and that there was an obligation in India for switching over to Membrane Cell Technology by 2012, as part of environmental protection measures which was notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India in the year 2003. The petitioner is stated to have responded to the said obligation well in advance and has converted its operations 5 years ahead of the upper limit fixed viz., 2012. While effecting such a conversion, the petitioner claims that it had to necessarily switch over to other austerity measures and as part of it wanted to switch over to coal based generation of its captive power generation unit from the present set up of LSHS i.e. diesel oil based.

.4. The petitioner is stated to have applied for change of fuel from diesel to coal on 23.02.2006, by installing captive power plant combining the Plant-II and Plant-III capacity and by restricting such power generation to the existing level of 48.5 MW. By proceedings dated 05.05.2006, the Pollution Control Board accorded its approval for such conversion by imposing certain additional special conditions to suit the needs of the coal based conversion. Based on such conversion permitted by the Pollution Control Board dated 05.05.2006, the petitioner is stated to have commenced the construction of its power generation plant, in order to commission the same by February, 2008. While the work was in progress, the third respondent is stated to have issued a show cause notice dated 012. 2007, under the Water and Air Acts stating that there was violation of the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.213, dated 30.03.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.127, dated 08.05.1998 of the Environment & Forest Department inasmuch as the clearance of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006, has not been obtained. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 212. 2007, taking the stand that it does not fall under the purview of the aforesaid G.Os. and that it is not a new industry. The reply was received by the third respondent on 07.01.2008. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 22.01.2008, the petitioner was directed to stop its construction activities of the coal based power plant with a further direction to apply for fresh consent for installation of power plant. The petitioner sent a detailed letter dated 29.01.2008 to the Pollution Control Board, to which there was no response.

5. The petitioner therefore filed its appeals under the Air Act and Water Act challenging the order dated 22.01.2008, b