(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the first respondent vide his proceedings No.T6/TNPCB/F.006594/NLG Closure /Air/2024-1, dated 21.01.2025 and Proceedings No.T6/TNPCB/F.006594/NLG Disconnect of Power Supply/Water/EB/2024/2, dated 21.01.2025 and quash the same as illegal.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 to 4 herein to issue NOC for the petitioner's Rice Mill namely M/s.Sree Kumaran Rice Mill, No.8/53, Pudhugramam, Theroor Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District within the time as fixed by this Court.)

M. Dhandapani, J.

1. W.P.(MD) No.2848 of 2025 has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 21.01.2025 and quash the same as illegal.

2. W.P.(MD) No.8524 of 2025 has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 4 herein to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the petitioner's rice mill, namely, M/s. Sree Kumaran Rice Mill, No.8/53, Pudhugramam, Theroor Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

3. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions arises out of the same set of proceedings and the parties are common, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Sree Kumaran Rice Mill, situated at Pudhugramam, Theroor Village, Kanyakumari District. The said rice mill has been functioning from the year 1995 onwards. Due to business rivalry, a complaint was submitted before the seventh respondent/District Environmental Engineer. Based on the said complaint, the petitioner was directed to obtain consent under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The petitioner had also paid a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and installed an Effluent Treatment Plant, as per the instructions of the seventh respondent.

5. It is further submitted that the sixth respondent, namely, the Town and Country Planning Authority, conducted a field inspection and submitted a report in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had to approach the HACA Committee for obtaining No Objection. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.11.2024 to the fourth respondent, namely, the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, who is the Chairman of the HACA Committee. However, no order was passed on the said representation. In the meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board passed a closure order dated 21.01.2025. Hence, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the closure order passed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has been issued solely on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained permission from the Town and Country Planning Authority, namely, HACA. Since HACA has now been replaced by the Town and Country Planning Authority, the petitioner may be permitted to approach the competent authority and submit an application for obtaining the requisite permission.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner may be permitted to submit an application before the sixth respondent/Town and Country Planning Authority within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and that the competent authority may be directed to process the said application and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is further submitted that, upon obtaining the requisite permission from the competent authority, liberty may be granted to the petitioner to approach the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for appropriate orders within a period of three weeks thereafter.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board would submit that, if the petitioner obtains all the requisite permissions, including the permission from the local body and the competent authority, the petitioner's application for No Objection Certificate and Consent to Operate would be considered in accordance with law.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondent would submit that the petitioner has been operating the rice mill for nearly 40 years without obtaining permission from the HACA authority, the local body or the other competent authorities, which is impermissible in law. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

10. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials available on record.

11. In view of the submissions made on either side, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner may first approach the competent authority for obtaining the requisite permission. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to submit an appropriate application before the appropriate Authorities within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such application, the sixth respondent/competent authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. Thereafter, if the petitioner obtains the requisite permission from the competent authority, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board by submitting an appropriate application for No Objection Certificate/Consent to Operate within a period of three weeks thereafter. On receipt of such application, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board shall consider the same, subject to the petitioner fulfilling all the requisite statutory requirements and obtaining necessary permissions from the local body and other competent authorities, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, the petitioner shall not operate the rice mill. However, the petitioner is permitted to remove any stock that is available, without operating the rice mill.

12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and the competent authorities shall consider the respective applications independently, on their own merits and in accordance with law.

13. With the above directions, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.