A writ petition challenging statutory consent orders is not maintainable when an alternative remedy by way of an appeal is specifically provided under the governing pollution control statutes.

6.Refugine Nirmal The Proprietor Messiah Blue Metals Inamkovilpatti Village Manapparai Taluk Trichy District ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct respondent No 1 and 5 to cancel the illegal permissions granted for establishing a stone crusher unit at Tiruchirappalli District, Manapparai Taluk, Inamkovilpatti Village in Survey No. 10/10 by the 4th respondent vide Consent Order No. 25016986149555555 and Proceedings No. F. 2171TRY/OS/DEE/TNPCB/TRY/W/2025 dated 15.10.2025 by considering the petitioners representation dated 01.04.2026.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathyachidambaram For R1 to R5 : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.M.P.Senthil, Counsel for State.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the official respondents to cancel the illegal permissions granted for establishing a stone crusher unit at Tiruchirappalli District, Manapparai Taluk, Inamkovilpatti Village in Survey No. 10/10 by the 4th respondent vide Consent Order No. 25016986149555555 and Proceedings No. F. 2171TRY/OS/DEE/TNPCB/TRY/W/2025 dated 15.10.2025 by considering the petitioners representation dated 01.04.2026.

2.The main grievance of the petitioner is that consent to establish the crusher unit has been granted despite serious violations.

According to the petitioner, the unit would give rise to serious environmental issues and cause inconvenience to the nearby public. However, it is seen that the necessary consents have already been granted by the authorities under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)

Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

3.At the outset, we are of the view that once the consent orders have been passed under the above said statutes, any person aggrieved by the same, may challenge them by way of appeal, as provided under Section 28 of the Water Act and Section 31 of the Air Act. Without doing so, the petitioner cannot challenge the consents already granted by the authorities by filing the present writ petition seeking consideration of his representation. Such a course would not serve any purpose. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. If the petitioner has any grievance, he is at liberty to file an appeal in the manner known to law.

4.In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.