BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

Application No. 23 of 2014 (SZ)
and
M.A. No. 21 of 2014 (SZ)
Applicant(s)
K. Mari, Ramnagar
Coimbatore

Vs.

Legal Practitioners for Applicant(s)

Mrs.Litta Srinivasan for M/s M.Samuel
Raja and S. Kalai Selvi

Note of the
Registry

Orders of the Tribunal

Order No.

Date 27th March 2015

Respondent(s)
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board and others
Legal practitioners for respondent(s)
Smt. H. Yasmeen Ali for R-1 and R-2
Ms. J. Hema Malini for R-3
Mr. I. Abrar Md. Abdullah for R-4

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

applicant as well as the respondents. The status report filed by
the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board states that the unit
of the 4th respondent was sealed on 26.2.2014 and the electric
connection was disconnected on 4.3.2014. It is however stated
that when further inspection was conducted as per the order of
the Tribunal on 29.1.2015. the 4th respondent unit was found to be
sealed even on 9.2.2015. However it is the case of the learned
counsel appearing for the applicant that the 4th respondent in fact
clandestinely entering into the premises and running the unit and
according to the learned counsel, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control
Board has not taken any adequate steps. She has also got a CD
prepared and according to her, the learned counsel appearing for
the applicant on record has also visited the spot.

It is curious to note in spite of such stand taken by the Board,

the 4th respondent in his affidavit dated 10.2.2015 has in clear
terms stated that he is presently running only the office in the
premises and no industrial unit. Therefore, there is an apparent
contradiction between the stand taken by the Board and the 4th
respondent. In such a view of the matter, we are of the view that
an Advocate Commissioner from this Tribunal should visit the spot
surprisingly without notice to any party and give us a status
report. Accordingly, we appoint Mr.R.A.Karimullah, Advocate,
No.338, IInd Floor, New Additional Law Chambers, High Court
Buildings,

Chennai-600

104

[Mob.No.

9894356643]

as

Advocate Commissioner who shall visit the spot concerned and

file a report as follows:1. As to whether the premises in question is really sealed in
all entrance and the same remains intact.
2. As to whether any person including 4th respondent is
present inside the premises, whether running the office or
industrial activities.
The learned Advocate Commissioner shall not only visit
surprisingly without notice but also the visit shall be on various
times more than one and not on holidays. We make it clear that if
necessary, the Advocate Commissioner may approach police for
protection in which event the nearby police station shall accord
necessary protection to him. The Advocate Commissioner shall
be paid a remuneration of Rs.30,000/- which is undertaken to be

paid by the 3rd respondent. This amount to be provided to the

learned Advocate Commissioner shall be in addition to the
travelling, accommodation and local transportation expenses.
The report shall be filed on 13.4.2015.

Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran

(Expert Member)

Justice Dr.P.Jyothimani
(Judicial Member)