The Tribunal dismissed review applications regarding delays in filing appeals and disposed of the parent appeals because the underlying Consent to Operates had expired, leaving no substantive matter to adjudicate.
Dismissed all Review Applications and Interlocutory Applications; disposed of Appeals Nos.20 to 25 of 2024.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Item No.16(i) to (vi):
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 09th day of July, 2026.
[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]
R.A. No.01 of 2024 (SZ) in
I.A. No. 25 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.20 of 2024 (SZ)
AND
R.A. No.02 of 2024 (SZ) in
I.A. No. 27 of 2024 (SZ) in
Appeal No.21 of 2024 (SZ)
AND
R.A. No.03 of 2024 (SZ) in
I.A. No. 26 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.22 of 2024 (SZ)
AND
R.A. No.04 of 2024 (SZ) in I.A. No. 28 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.23 of 2024 (SZ)
AND
R.A. No.05 of 2024 (SZ) in
I.A. No. 29 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.24 of 2024 (SZ)
AND
R.A. No.06 of 2024 (SZ) in
I.A. No. 30 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.25 of 2024 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
A. Thiyagaraj,
S/o. K. Arogyasamy, 4/231, Nagarakalandai Pirivu, Dasanaikan Palayam Post, Malaipalayam Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.
... Review Applicant/ Applicant/ Appellant(s)
Versus
1) The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Corporate Office, No.76, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
2) The District Environmental Engineer (Coimbatore South), Tamil Nadu Pollution control Board, Plot No. E-55A, Kuruchi, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Pollachi Main Road, Coimbatore – 641 021.
Page 1 of 4
3) M/s. Duinkop Enterprises Private Limited – Unit I., Represented by its Managing Director, No.58/1, Palladam Pollachi Main Road, Kattampatti Village, KinathuKadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.
R.A. No.01 of 2024 - Respondent No.3
M/s. Duinkop Enterprises Private Limited – Unit I.,
Represented by its Managing Director, No.58/1, Palladam Pollachi Main Road, Kattampatti Village, KinathuKadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.
R.A. No.02 of 2024 - Respondent No.3
M/s. Remmy Substrates India Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director, No.299/2, Kattampatti Village, Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.
R.A. No.03 of 2024 - Respondent No.3
M/s. Duinkop Enterprises Private Limited – Unit I.,
Represented by its Managing Director, No.58/1, Palladam Pollachi Main Road, Kattampatti Village, KinathuKadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.
R.A. No.04 of 2024 - Respondent No.3
M/s. Duinkop Enterprises Private Limited – Unit I.,
Represented by its Managing Director, No.58/1, Palladam Pollachi Main Road, Kattampatti Village, KinathuKadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.
R.A. No.05 of 2024 - Respondent No.3
M/s. Remmy Substrates India Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director, No.299/2, Kattampatti Village, Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.
R.A. No.06 of 2024 - Respondent No.3
...Respondent/Respondent(s)
(In all these cases)
For Review Applicant(s): Mr. A. Yogeshwaran represented M/s. R. Prabakar, P. Marudhupandiyan & S. Selvi. For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 & R2. Mr. S.A. Sayed Shuhaibb for R3.
CORAM :
HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER
Page 2 of 4
J U D G M E N T
1) Originally, the above appeals [Appeal Nos.20 to 25 of 2024 (SZ)] were filed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board dated 30.08.2023. Along with the appeals, the appellant had filed the above interlocutory applications [I.A. Nos.25 to 30 of 2024 (SZ)] to condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeals. The said interlocutory applications were dismissed on 19.03.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, Review Applications [R.A. Nos.1 to 6 of 2024 (SZ)] were filed by the applicants, which was allowed holding that there was a wrong calculation made by the counsel, which resulted in the order of dismissal of interlocutory applications [I.A. Nos.25 to 30 of 2024 (SZ)].
2) Thereafter, the private respondents preferred W.P. Nos.3980, 3983, 3986 and 3989 of 2025 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras against the order passed in the Review Applications on the ground that they were not heard before allowing the delay petitions. The said writ petitions were allowed and remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after hearing the private respondents also by order dated 25.02.2025.
3) Be that as it may, the original appeals [Appeal Nos.20 to 25 of 2024 (SZ)] were directed against the Consent to Operate (CTO) – Direct dated 16.11.2021, etc. granted to the private respondents. The CTO issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board expired on 31.03.2026. The validity of the CTOs came to end and the units should have obtained fresh CTOs, which may be challenged by the applicants if aggrieved by
Page 3 of 4
filing fresh appeals. Therefore, there is nothing remains to be adjudicated either in the Review applications, Interlocutory Applications or in the Appeals.
4) In view of the same, all the Review Applications [R.A. Nos.1 to 6 of 2024 (SZ)] and the interlocutory applications [I.A. Nos.25 to 30 of 2024 (SZ)] are dismissed.
5) Consequentially, the appeals [Appeal Nos.20 to 25 of 2024 (SZ)] are also disposed of .
Sd/Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM R.A. No.01 to 06/2024 (SZ) in I.A. No.25 to 30/2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.20 to 25/2024 (SZ) 09th July, 2026. Mn.
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Review Applications and Interlocutory Applications require adjudication when the underlying Consent to Operate has expired.
Whether the pending Appeal Nos.20 to 25 of 2024 requires further determination.
A. Thiyagaraj
The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
M/s. Duinkop Enterprises Private Limited
M/s. Remmy Substrates India Pvt. Ltd.
Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Prashant Gargava
As recorded by the court registry
An application asking a tribunal to review its own order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
