M.C. Mehta v. Union of India , (SC) BS153451
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- R.C. Lahoti, C.J.I.; C. K. Thakker and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

Writ Petition (C) No. 3727 of 1985. D/d. 11.7.2005.

M.C. Mehta - Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and Ors. - Respondents

Environment Protection Act, 1986, Section 3 - Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948, Section 18 - Environment protection - Pollution - Thermal Power Station - West Bengal Pollution Control Board satisfied all the requisite norms having been fulfilled by Damodar valley corporation as regard to Drugapur Thermal Power Station - Board may grant permission despite pendency of matter before court.

[Paras 2 and 3]

ORDER

I. A. No. 373 (filed by Damodar Valley Corporation) Heard the learned senior counsel for the applicant DVC and the learned ASG for the West Bengal Pollution Control Board (for short "the Board").

2. According to the applicant, the Board has carried out the inspection and is satisfied of all the requisite norms having been fulfilled by DVC but has refused to grant consent to operate to DVC on the ground that the matter was sub judice in this Court.

3. We clarify that if the Board is satisfied of all the requisite norms having been fulfilled by DVC as regards Durgapur Thermal Power Station, Units 3 and 4, then de hors the pendency of the matter before this Court, the Board may grant consent to operate to the applicant DVC.

4. The I. A. stands disposed of.

I. A. No. 370 (filed by Damodar Valley Corporation)

5. The IA is dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed.

I. A. No. 352 (filed by Andrew Yule and Co.)

6. The learned senior counsel for DVC submits that in view of the order dated 20-1-2005 passed on I. A. No. 372 (filed by DVC) and the subsequent event of Andrew Yule and Co. having filed a civil suit, this application does not survive for adjudication.

7. List on the next date as the counsel for the applicant is not available.

I. A. No. 106 (filed by Central Pollution Control Board)

8. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the 11 parties to this application, as mentioned in the Office Report dated 6-7-2005, are not served. The learned counsel for the applicant gives up these parties submitting that they are not necessary parties.

9. The application be treated as ripe for hearing and be listed accordingly.

Rest of the matters.

10. Adjourned.

Order accordingly.