The need for accommodation to prevent a failure of justice in filing appeals against closure orders.

1. Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the Tripura State Pollution Control Board.

2. All these writ petitions, being W.P. (C) No. 1155 of 2016 [Abani Mohan Das vs. Tripura State Pollution Control Board and Another], W.P. (C) No. 1157 of 2016 [Sidhartha Sarkar Esh vs. Tripura State Pollution Control Board and Another], W.P. (C) No. 1158 of 2016 [Pranab Chanda vs. State of Tripura and Another], W.P. (C) No. 1159 2016, [Narul Haque Talukdar vs. Tripura State Pollution Control Board and Another] W.P. (C) No. 1210 of 2016 [Md. Fakar Uddin vs. Tripura State Pollution Control Board and Another], W.P. (C) No. 1213 of 2016 [Lakshan Chatterjee vs. Tripura State Pollution Control Board and Others], W.P. (C) No. 1222 of 2016 [Sajal Ch. Deb vs. Tripura State Pollution Control Board and Others] and W.P. (C) No. 1223 of 2016 [Sati Tripura vs. Tripura State Pollution Control Board and Others] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the common order of closure dated 28.10.2016 [Annexure-R/19 to the reply filed by the Tripura State Pollution Control Board in W.P. (C) No. 1155/2016] has been challenged in these writ petitions.

3. Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that nowhere the National Green Tribunal has directed the Tripura State Pollution Control Board to impose penalty on the defaulting brick fields operating without consent to operate. However, he has fairly admitted that all the petitioners had received the notice from the Tripura State Pollution Control Board asking them why the penal measures shall not taken against them. Finally by the impugned order dated 28.10.2016, the petitioners’ brick kilns had been directed to close down subject to payment of Rs. 1,00,000/ to Rs. 1,50,000/- respectively for the brick kilns falling in the category ‘C’ and category ‘D’ as environmental compensation by 16.09.2016.

4. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the Tripura State Pollution Control Board has submitted that since the petitioners did not pay the amount imposed as penalty, the final closure orders were subsequently issued. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has placed briefly the facts, essential to appreciate the controversy, that since the petitioners did not obtain the consent to establish/consent to operate for operating their brick fields, the show cause notices were issued on them on 02.04.2016 [Annexure-R/6 to the reply filed by the Tripura State Pollution Control Board in W.P. (C) No. 1155/2016] asking them why the legal action shall not be taken under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 31(A) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 for non-compliance of the conditions as laid down by the Tripura State Pollution Control Board.

5. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has apprised that the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata had taken up a matter relating to operation of the illegal brick kilns which are rampantly violating the provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. At the direction of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the Tripura State Pollution Control Board had surveyed all the brick kilns of the State and found the petitioners were operating without the consent to operate and they submitted their report to the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench at Kolkata.

6. Having noticed the said violation, by the order dated 13.05.2016 [delivered in O.A. No. 74/2015/EZ] the NGT observed, inter alia as under:

“We leave it upon the PCB to proceed in the matter in accordance with law in the light of our order dated 29.03.2016 (supra). The PCB is at liberty to exercise its powers vested in them under the