BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Application No. 116 of 2014 (SZ) Applicant(s) Respondent(s) Shri. C. Palani, Valathoor Post, 1) The District Collector, Vellore Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District 2) The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Vaniyambadi 3) The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai 4) The Junior Engineer (O&M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Valathoor, Vellore Dist. 5) The President, UIII Panchayat, Valathoor Post Vellore District. 6) K. Velu, Proprietor, Vel Engineering Works Aari Muthupatti Village, Vellore District. Legal Practitioners for Applicant(s) Legal practitioners for respondent(s) Shri VG. Jayachadran, M/s. M.K. Subramanian and M.R. Gokul Krishnan, for R-1 Smt. H. Yasmeen Ali, for R-2 and R-3 Shri P. Gnanasekaran, for R-4 Shri.R.Govindarajan for R-6 Note of the Registry Orders of the Tribunal Order No. Date 1st September, 2014 The counsel for the applicant and the respondents 1 to 4 are present. Fresh notice is ordered to 5th respondent. The counsel for the respondents 1 and 4 seek further time for filing reply. The 6th respondent against whom the allegations are made has already filed reply. 2. The case of the applicant, in short, is that the 6th respondent without having necessary consent to establish from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is carrying on its operation of the Unit involving iron melting, casting and forging thereby causing indiscriminate pollution which has got to be immediately stopped. Contrarily, the counsel for the 6th respondent would submit that pursuant to the order of closure by the 3rd respondent, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the electricity service connection was disconnected abruptly and the Unit is not in operation. But this fact is disputed by the applicant. According to the counsel for the 3rd respondent, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, it is true that a closure order was served following a Show Cause Notice and the electricity service connection has also been disconnected and thus there is no possibility of the 6th respondent to carry on its operation of the Unit. Since the factual position on the operation of the 6th respondent’s Unit is in controversy, it becomes necessary to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent, the District Environmental Engineer concerned to make an inspection of the Unit and file a report in the next hearing. For filing the report, the matter is posted to 17.11.2014. Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran Justice M. Chockalingam (Expert Member) (Judicial Member) .