Dismissed

A.Thiyagaraj v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

NGT9 Jul 2026Review Application No. 6/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Southern Zone dismissed review and interlocutory applications in environmental appeals concerning expired Consent to Operate (CTO) permits. The Court held that the original permits had lapsed, rendering further adjudication unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Review applications, interlocutory applications and appeals dismissed; matter disposed of.

A.Thiyagaraj vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.16(i) to (vi):

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Thursday, the 09^th day of July, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

R.A. No.01 of 2024 (SZ) in

¶6

I.A. No. 25 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.20 of 2024 (SZ)

¶7

AND

¶8

R.A. No.02 of 2024 (SZ) in

¶9

I.A. No. 27 of 2024 (SZ) in

¶10

Appeal No.21 of 2024 (SZ)

¶11

AND

¶12

R.A. No.03 of 2024 (SZ) in

¶13

I.A. No. 26 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.22 of 2024 (SZ)

¶14

AND

¶15

R.A. No.04 of 2024 (SZ) in I.A. No. 28 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.23 of 2024 (SZ)

¶16

AND

¶17

R.A. No.05 of 2024 (SZ) in

¶18

I.A. No. 29 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.24 of 2024 (SZ)

¶19

AND

¶20

R.A. No.06 of 2024 (SZ) in

¶21

I.A. No. 30 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.25 of 2024 (SZ)

¶22

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶23

A. Thiyagaraj,

¶24

S/o. K. Arogyasamy, 4/231, Nagarakalandai Pirivu, Dasanaikan Palayam Post, Malaipalayam Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.

¶25

... Review Applicant/ Applicant/ Appellant(s)

¶26

Versus

¶27

1) The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Corporate Office, No.76, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶28

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.

¶29

Page 1 of 4

¶30

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.

¶31

R.A. No.01 of 2024 - Respondent No.3

¶32

M/s. Duinkop Enterprises Private Limited – Unit I.,

¶33

Represented by its Managing Director, No.58/1, Palladam Pollachi Main Road, Kattampatti Village, KinathuKadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.

¶34

R.A. No.02 of 2024 - Respondent No.3

¶35

M/s. Remmy Substrates India Pvt. Ltd.,

¶36

Represented by its Managing Director, No.299/2, Kattampatti Village, Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.

¶37

R.A. No.03 of 2024 - Respondent No.3

¶38

M/s. Duinkop Enterprises Private Limited – Unit I.,

¶39

Represented by its Managing Director, No.58/1, Palladam Pollachi Main Road, Kattampatti Village, KinathuKadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.

¶40

R.A. No.04 of 2024 - Respondent No.3

¶41

M/s. Duinkop Enterprises Private Limited – Unit I.,

¶42

Represented by its Managing Director, No.58/1, Palladam Pollachi Main Road, Kattampatti Village, KinathuKadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.

¶43

R.A. No.05 of 2024 - Respondent No.3

¶44

M/s. Remmy Substrates India Pvt. Ltd.,

¶45

Represented by its Managing Director, No.299/2, Kattampatti Village, Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District – 642 202.

¶46

R.A. No.06 of 2024 - Respondent No.3

¶47

...Respondent/Respondent(s)

¶48

(In all these cases)

¶49

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.

¶50

CORAM :

¶51

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶52

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶53

Page 2 of 4

¶54

J U D G M E N T

¶55

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)].

¶56

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.

¶57

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

¶58

Page 3 of 4

¶59

filing fresh appeals. Therefore, there is nothing remains to be adjudicated either in the Review applications, Interlocutory Applications or in the Appeals.

¶60

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.

¶61

5) Consequentially, the appeals [Appeal Nos.20 to 25 of 2024 (SZ)] are also disposed of .

¶62

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) 09^th July, 2026. Mn.

¶63

Page 4 of 4

A.Thiyagaraj v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Thiyagaraj v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Gopal Rai vs State of Jharkhand

Sanjib Dhal S/O Murali Dhal Aged About 47 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhiretanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs Union of India through Secretary Moef & Cc

Anantha Seetharam Reddy vs State of Telangana Rep. by Its Principal Secretary. Irrigation and Cad Department

Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life vs Chapra Nagar Parishad

Amarchand Surana vs State of Chattisgarh

Mahendra Singh vs State Forest and Wildlife Department

K Palanivel vs Union of India

1. K.Balasubramanian vs 1. the Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Chief Secretary

Ramaniyam Towers Residents Association Represented by Mr. Kannan Subbiah vs Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority Represented by Its Member Secretary

A.Thiyagaraj vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

A.Thiyagaraj vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

A.Thiyagaraj vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board