After the establishment of the National Green Tribunal, the court lacks substantive jurisdiction to entertain challenges against orders of the appellate authority under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.05.2013, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, which has been passed by the appellate authority in exercise of its jurisdiction as provided under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 in the appeal. By the closure order dated 14.02.2012, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the rice mill of the petitioners, under name and style of ‘Joyram Rice Mill’ situated at Ranirbazar was directed to be closed down forthwith, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 33 (A) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

Being aggrieved by that order dated 14.02.2012, the petitioners had filed an appeal under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 raising the ground that the said rice mill was all the times observing the standard so far the noise level and water standard are concerned. The petitioners have further contended that there was no scientific inquiry into the allegations and without resorting any inquiry, the said closure order dated 14.02.2012 was issued by the Member Secretary, Tripura State Pollution Control Board illegally and arbitrarily. Despite that, the petitioners have complied the said order dated 14.02.2012 by suspending the operation of the said rice mill. By the said appeal, legality of the order dated 14.02.2012 was questioned. It would be apparent from the memorandum dated 02.06.2012, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, that even during the appellate proceeding inspection in the mill was carried out for purpose of submitting the report to the appellate authority. The appellate authority made the following observations on perusal of the inspection report:

“1. In stark violation of the order of the TSPCB, who had issued the closure order dated 14th February, 2012 and the Authority, who had permitted operation of the Mill only prior and during the inspection by the Authority and TSPCB as allowed by the Authority for recording the Mill is still being operated as confirmed by the local residents. The Mill owner himself admitted to the Authority running the Mill even in night to make up the loss of outputs due to power cut in the residential area during the daytime.

2. The unit has changed over to use manual cleaner instead of machine cleaner.

3. The Blower section has been covered up with plywood. According to the proprietor the unit has reduced rpm rate of the motor blower from 1440 rpm to 960 rpm, although the Mill owner on demand from the Authority could produce no document in support of this.

4. The unit has installed a steam exhauster on the top of overhead boiler section linked with water tank at ground level through which the steam passes into the water.

5. The unit has erected fencing at both side of the boundary using GCI sheets.

6. The screening chamber is open and generates suspended particulate Matters.

7. The ash contents produced are not being properly managed.

8. The internal electrifications were not found satisfactory as the electric wires were found hanging all around and were even found on the floor thus posing serious threats on the count of both electrocution of the workers and fire due to short circuiting.

9. No technically approved system of fire extinguisher was noted inside the Mill premises.

10. The enquiry from the employees of the Mill revealed to the Authority lack of any health safety plan from the Mill owner for the workers.

11. As per the advice of Authority the officials of TSPCB measured noise