consent is necessary for running the unit especially with regard to servicing of the vehicles. The Respondent No.2 in their communication dated 16.05.2019, has informed the Respondent No.1 that they are operating the unit without obtaining consent, and not provided effluent treatment plan and they discharging untreated effluents to drainage without treatment and therefore they were asked to show cause as to why further legal action should not be initiated under the provisions of the above said acts. The Respondent No.2 in the subsequent communication dated 17.08.2020, issued a closure direction under Section 33A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 read with 31 A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as under the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. The Respondent No.1 responding to the said order submitted their reply dated 21.08.2021 stating among other things that they have not applied for permission/consent from the Respondent No.2 in the light of the fact that the provisions of the concerned Municipal Corporation Act, no objection certificate is required, and however, they got all necessary permissions to run the business activities of selling and servicing of the vehicles. 16. It is also stated by the Respondent No.1 they have not put on prior notice, and also took a stand that they are not discharging any effluents, and thereby indulging in any illegal activities and the closure order causes them hardship and difficulty in running the operations. The Respondent No.1 also informed that they have also applied for consent to the the Respondent No.2 vide MPCB-Consent-0000102839 dated 24.11.2020 and undertakes to install the STP despite the fact that they have not violated the norms and not discharging any untreated effluent into municipal drain.
