SAYYED ALI Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH WAKF BOARD HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An additional affidavit of Undertaking has been filed in Court today by Mr. P. Natarajan on behalf of the Industry, respondent No. 6.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for respondent No. 6, the learned Amicus Curiae as also the learned counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

(3.) From a perusal of the affidavit filed by the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 12-1-1998, it transpires that certain directions were issued by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as amended in 1988 to respondent No. 6. These directions were inter alia aimed at ensuring proper storage of effluent in lagoons and for proper treatment and disposal of the treated effluent. As many as 11 directions, as detailed in the affidavit, were given. Para 5 of the said affidavit discloses that the Industry (respondent No. 6) has not complied with directions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. It is also stated that during the inspection of the Industry on 23rd of November, 1997, it was noticed that the seepage of effluent from lagoon 'C' joined the drain and ultimately reached river Bhavani thereby contravening the conditions imposed in the directions by the Board. The affidavit goes on to say that show cause notice was also issued by the Board to the Industry calling upon it to State why penal action for offences punishable under Section 44 read with Section 45 (a) of the Act should not be initiated for violating the conditions imposed by the Board.