for whatsoever reason. It can, thus, be seen that prima facie, at this stage, it has come on record that the blower requires repairs and maintenance. In so far as the consent granted by the Pollution Control Board is concerned, at least prima facie, it cannot be accepted that it is subject to the unit being shifted to mezzanine floor. Had it been so, the consent could have been made specifically subject to condition of such shifting. At least, prima facie it shows that it is made operative from the date of the letter i.e. 01/02/2017 and is valid for three months, albeit subject to one of the condition namely 5(xi) that the blowers shall be shifted to mezzanine floor. I, thus, find that prima facie, at this stage, the first respondent has not been granted the relief of removal of the blowers from the terrace and secondly, there is a valid consent by the Pollution Control Board. Thus, it would be appropriate that the unit is repaired and properly maintained. The object of installation of the subject unit is prevention of air and noise pollution and thus, the proper upkeep and maintenance of the unit, would be in consonance with the object of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the cognate enactments. I, therefore, find that the application needs to be granted by permitting the applicant an access to the terrace for the purpose of repairs and maintenance of the blowers. This shall be without prejudice to the rival contentions of the parties.
