Disposed

Commercial Tannery v. Central Pollution Control Board

NGT8 Aug 2024Original Application No. 1053/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal resolved a grievance filed by a tannery regarding the prolonged pendency of its application for consolidated consent and authorization. The bench directed the Central Pollution Control Board to decide the application without further delay.

What did the court decide?

The respondent was directed to consider the application and decide it within three months.

Commercial Tannery vs Central Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 08

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 1053/2024

Commercial Tannery

Applicant

Versus

Central Pollution Control Board & Anr. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 08.08.2024

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicant: Mr. M.Z. Chaudhary, Mr. S.A. Zaidi, Ms. Mansi Chahal, Mr. Tabarak Hussain & Mr. Kapil, Advs.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

In this original application, the Applicant has raised a grievance against keeping its application for consolidated consent and authorization dated 08.05.2024 by Respondent No. 2, pending.

¶14

Submission of Counsel for the Applicant is that earlier the unit was functioning and that the closure order was passed against the unit and, thereafter, a decision was taken in the meeting dated 04.11.2023 for revocation of the closure order and granting permission to run the unit for 3 months and it was further conveyed by the Chairman, CPCB on 19.12.2023 that the unit shall obtain the valid consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and authorization under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 issued by SPCB and shall not operate without valid constraint and authorization.

¶15

¶16

The limited grievance of the Applicant is that though the application for consolidated consent and authorization was filed before Respondent No. 2 on 08.05.2024 but till now, no decision on the said application has been taken.

¶17

The concerned authority is required to duly consider the application filed by the Applicant in accordance with law and take an appropriate decision without keeping it pending.

¶18

Hence, we dispose of the OA directing the Respondent No. 2 to duly consider the Applicant’s application for consolidated consent and authorization in accordance with law and decided it by following the due process, as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶20

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶21

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶22

August 08, 2024 Original Application No. 1053/2024 DV

¶23

Commercial Tannery v. Central Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commercial Tannery v. Central Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narasimha Devadiga vs the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Chief Secretary

Dinesh Prasad Chaurasia & Ors. vs State of Bihar

Sadiq Hussain vs State of Chattisgarh

Sunil Kumar vs

Brijesh Singh vs

Ramesh Mahendru vs

Jeevan George vs Central Pollution Control Board

Mr. Nagesh Vinayak Dhamale vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi

Sunil Kumar vs

Teerth Purohit Priyank Karnatka vs

Mahesh Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary

N D Joshi vs

Sourabh Kumar vs

Ms Shudh Garhwal Paneer Nirmata Sangh vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee