Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J This public interest litigation has been preferred by the Petitioner for direction on the respondents not to permit or to carry on 9th respondent industrial unit at S.F.No.664, Nadupalayam, Mettupalayam Post, Vellakoil Block, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District, in contravention of G.O. (MS) No.51 dated 12. 2004 issued from Public Works Department of the State and without prior consent of the first and second respondent under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 2. The ninth respondent appeared, filed an affidavit and contested the case. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the ninth respondent, the writ petition is premature, as the ninth respondent industrial unit is yet to become functional and it is waiting for consent and operate order from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the matter is pending consideration before the State authority. Further, according to him G.O. (MS) No.51 dated 12. 2004 issued from Public Works Department is not applicable to the present case and no separate permission is required to be obtained from the Public Works Department of the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board submits that the ninth respondent has already applied for consent and the matter is under consideration of the Pollution Control Board and certain formalities are yet to be made by the ninth respondent. According to him, as per G.O. (MS) No.51 dated 12. 2004, all the schemes should be formulated in consultation with the State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre of Water Resources Organisation in public works Department and the Unit should obtain water clearance from Public Works Department prior to apply for consent to establish. 4. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, the consent of Public Works Department is required as per G.O. (MS) No.51 dated 12. 2004. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. It is not in dispute that the ninth respondent Unit has applied for consent and operate order, by application Form Nos.1 and 2 submitted on 6. 2004. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. It is not in dispute that the ninth respondent Unit has applied for consent and operate order, by application Form Nos.1 and 2 submitted on 6. 2009 with the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board pursuant to the said letter, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has addressed the ninth respondent Unit to comply with certain formalities and to take steps for corrective measures for certain discrepancies, by letter No.DEE/TNPCE/PND/F.New/2009-1 dated 6. 2009. 7. The ninth respondent Unit has also applied to Central Ground Water Authority, Government of India for permission with respect to withdrawl of ground water for the packaged drinking water unit at Village Mettupalayam, Block Vellkoil, Taluka Kangeyam, District Tirupur. The Central Ground Water Authority, by letter dated 7. 2009, has granted permission, as the mentioned site falls in “Safe Category” area on ground water resource consideration. Such permission has been granted in the light of the Supreme Court decision in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India ( 1997 (11) SCC 312 ). 8. G.O. (MS) No.51 dated 12. 2004 issued from Public Works Department has been brought on record. The same relates to estimation of ground water resources as per GEC Methodology 1997 and categorization of Panchayat Union Blocks as over exploited, Critical, Semi Critical and Safe for ground water development in Tamil Nadu. This will be evident from the said order as quoted here under:- “ORDER:- Based on the development of Ground Water Resources The Panchayat Union Blocks in Tamil Nadu were cate-gorized into Dark and grey areas in the G.O. first read above. The Blocks with more than 85% to 100% Ground water. Development were categorized as “Dark block” and the blocks with ground water development between 65% to 85% were categorized as “Grey Blocks”. This categorization was done in accordance with the then prevailing Ground Water Estimation Committee-1984 (GEC-1984) Norms. Thereafter the Committee constituted by the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India has recommended to adopt the GEC-1997 Norms for estimation of the Ground Water resources in all the States. 2. The Government, in the G.O. second read above constituted a State Level Working Group for the assessment of the ground water potential in Tamilnadu. The above group have finalized the categorization of the Panchayat Union Blocks as per the GEC 1997 Methodology. 2. The Government, in the G.O. second read above constituted a State Level Working Group for the assessment of the ground water potential in Tamilnadu. The above group have finalized the categorization of the Panchayat Union Blocks as per the GEC 1997 Methodology. The ground Water resources have been computed as on January 1998 and the same has been projected to January 2003 on prorate basis as decided during the Working Group meeting. The above assessment report has been vatted and accepted by the Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Govt., of India, New Delhi. 3. In his letter seventh read above the Chief Engineer (State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre) has stated that based on the GEC 1997 Methodology, the Ground Water Assessment has been worked out and based on the development of Ground Water and the long term water level trend, the Panchayat Union Blocks in Tamil Nadu have been categorized as Over-Exploited, Critical, Semi-Critical and Safe. The Chief Engineer has proposed that in order to observe certain Ground Water discipline for implementation of Minor Irrigation schemes so as to conserve and manage the ground water potential, the categorization of Panchayat Union blocks in all the districts (except Chennai district) of Tamil Nadu have to be notified and circulated to all departments and agencies dealing with the ground water development. 4. The Member-Secretary, State Planning Commission has also requested the Government to inform the Collectors of the categorization of the Blocks as per GEC 1997 Methodology for guidance in implementation of the programmes for Rain Water Harvesting and artificial recharge of Ground Water. 5. The Government have decided to approve the above proposals of the Chief Engineer (State-ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre). Accordingly the Government approve the categorization of the Panchayat Union blocks in Tamilnadu as Over-Exploited, Critical, Semi Critical and Safe Blocks for ground water development as on January 2003 as detailed in the Annexure to this order. 6. The Government also direct that no schemes should be formulated in over exploited and critical blocks, and in semi critical and safe blocks all the scheme should be formulated in consultation with State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre of Water Resources Organisation in public Works Department. The term “Scheme excludes energisation of agricultural pump sets by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 7. The term “Scheme excludes energisation of agricultural pump sets by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 7. The Government further direct that appropriate rainwater harvesting and artificial recharge schemes be carried out in all the categories of blocks and while carrying out the above schemes priority shall be given to the over exploited and the critical blocks so as to avoid further deterioration.” 9. From the aforesaid G.O. (MS) No.51 dated 12. 2004, it will be evident that the Government has directed that no scheme should be formulated in over-exploited and critical blocks and that, only in semi-critical and safe blocks, all schemes should be formulated in consultation with State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre of Water Resources Organisation in Public Works Department. There is no mandate issued by the State Government by the said order to obtain prior permission to lift ground water from semi critical or safe blocks (safe category area). 10, The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to Circular Memo No.T10/TNPCB/17787/2002 dated 17. 2004 issued from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and submitted that the Pollution Control Board has opined that in terms with the G.O. (Ms) No.51 dated 12. 2004, proposed packaged drinking water and soft drink units in the over exploited and critical blocks as defined in G.O. Ms.No.51 will have to get ground water clearance from PWD/CMWSSB based on the micro water-shed based recharge potential without any threshold limit – i.e. whatever be the level of water drawl. In all such cases, consent will be issued by the Board Office, i.e. such units will be treated as falling under Red Category. 11. In this connection, we may only mention that a Government order including G.O. (Ms) No.51 dated 12. 2004 can be clarified by the State Government only and no other authority can clarify, adding or altering the meaning of Government Order. In any case, the aforesaid observation made in the Circular dated 17. 2004, cannot be made applicable in the present case of the ninth respondent, as the proposed packaged drinking water and soft drinking units are not falling in the “over exploited and critical blocks”. As per G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 12. 2004, it falls within the semi critical or safe category. 12. That apart, it will be evident from the letter dated 7. 2009 issued by the Central Government Ground Water Authority that the mentioned area falls in “safe category”. As per G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 12. 2004, it falls within the semi critical or safe category. 12. That apart, it will be evident from the letter dated 7. 2009 issued by the Central Government Ground Water Authority that the mentioned area falls in “safe category”. It even does not say that it is even semi critical (70 and 90%). Further, from G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 12. 2004, it will be evident that the Government has directed that no scheme should be formulated in over-exploited and critical blocks and only in semi critical and safe blocks, all schemes should be formulated in consultation with the State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre or Water Resources Organisation in Public Works Department. As this is not a question of determination of a scheme, but relates to grant of permission by Pollution Control Department to allow and operate, G.O. (Ms) No.51 dated 12. 2004 cannot be made applicable to the case of the ninth respondent. 13. In this regard, it is to be noticed that the State Government has already framed an Act to regulate and control extraction, use or transport of ground water and to conserve ground water in Chennai and adjoining areas of Chennai, i.e. Chennai Metropolitan Area Ground Water (Regulation) Act, 1987. The said Act is not applicable to regulate and control the extraction, use or transport of ground water and to conserve ground water in Erode District. If further appears that an Act to protect ground water resources to provide safe-guards against hazards of its over exploitation and to ensure its planned development and proper management in the State of Tamil Nadu, the State Government enacted Tamil Nadu Ground Water (development and Management) Act, 2003 (Tamil Nadu Act No.3 of 2003). Though the assent of the President was received on 3. 2003 and the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary Part IV on 3. 2003, the appointed date having not notified till date, Tamil Nadu Act No.3 of 2003 has not yet been given effect. Therefore, in terms of the said Act also, the ninth respondent cannot be directed to obtain any permission from the State Government, particularly from its Public Works Department. We find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.