JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, J., CHAIRMAN — This appeal under section 31 of the AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act, in short) at the instance of M/s. Joy Iron & Steels Ltd., which is a sponge iron industry having its plant at Balanda under Lathikata Block of Sundargarh district, is directed against the order dated 17.6.2009 passed by the State Pollution Control Board, Orissa, (hereinafter ‘the Board’) under Section 21 of the AIR Act and Sec¬tion 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 refusing consent to establish the 3rd DRI Kiln with a capacity of 100 TDP for production of sponge iron of quantity of 30,000 TPA, vide Annexure-9. The ground for refusing the consent is that since the application of the appellant for consent to establish the 3rd DRI kiln was received on 22.3.2005, the same could not be treated to be a pending application received before 22.3.2005 and also could not be considered on merit as fresh proposal since the same has not satisfied the policy of the State Govt. for establishment/expansion of sponge iron plant contained in letter no. 13808 dated 4.8.2005 (Annexure-1 to the written note submitted by the Board). It may be stated here that the appellant initially filed this appeal challenging the communication dated 12.6.2008 issued by the Board, vide Annexure-6, requiring the appellant to furnish certain information to consider the application for grant of consent to establish the 3rd DRI kiln. When the Board during pendency of the appeal finally passed the impugned order dated 17.6.2009 refusing consent to establish the 3rd kiln and brought the same to the notice of this Authority through a memo filed on 20.6.2009, the appellant sought to make necessary amendments. On leave being granted to that effect, the appellant has filed the consolidated memo of appeal incorporating the amendments chal¬lenging the order dated 17.6.2009 refusing consent to establish, vide Annexure-9. 2. The respondent-Board through its Law Officer has also filed a written note on 20.10.2009 enclosing therewith copy of letter no.13808 dated 4.8.2005 issued by the State Govt. in Forest & Environment Department along with copy of the minutes of the meeting of the High Level Committee of the State Govt. dated 23.6.2005 as well as the minutes of the meeting held on 22.3.2005 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, vide Annexure-1. 3. in Forest & Environment Department along with copy of the minutes of the meeting of the High Level Committee of the State Govt. dated 23.6.2005 as well as the minutes of the meeting held on 22.3.2005 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, vide Annexure-1. 3. Shri B.P. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the sole ground advanced by the Board for refusing consent to establish the 3rd DRI kiln was that the application submitted by the appellant was received on 22.3.2005 for which it could not be considered as a pending case and in view of the restriction imposed by the State Govt. vide the letter dated 4.8.2005. He further submitted that the appel¬lant submitted its application on 22.3.2005 and, therefore, the restriction imposed by the Stage Govt. in as indicated above is not at all applicable to appellant unit. 4. Shri B.P. Pattajoshi, learned Law Officer appearing for the respondent-Board, in support of the order passed by the Board, argued that it is legally not permissible for the Board to add, substitute or modify the order of the State Govt. He further argued that as the application of the appellant was received on 22.3.2005 and as it is clearly indicated in the proceeding of the meeting held on 23.6.2005 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary that no expansion proposals except those received before 22.3.2005 would be allowed in the six blocks and since the appellant unit is situated in one of such Blocks, i.e., Lathikata Block, and the appellant’s application was not received before 22.3.2005, the Board has rightly refused the consent to establish by the order impugned in this appeal. In this regard Shri Patta¬joshi placed reliance on sub-para (ii) of para 1 of the proceed¬ings of the meeting held on 23.6.2005 as well as the decision of the State Govt. contained in the letter dated 4.8.2005. Learned counsel for the appellant also relying upon the aforesaid pro¬ceeding and drawing our attention to para 2 under which it has been stated that “(s)imilarly, rest 22 pending cases with SPCB as on 22.3.2005 may be considered for issue of NOC by SPCB on merit and with similar stipulation” submitted that since the applica¬tion was admittedly received by the Board on 22.3.2005, the Board has no authority to refuse consent to establish the 3rd DRI kiln by misinterpreting the decision of the State Govt. referred to above. 5. We also find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The State Govt. in Forest & Environ¬ment Department issued the letter dated 4.8.2005 indicating that the expansion proposal received by the SPC Board before the deci¬sion on prohibition on establishment/expansion of sponge iron units was made by Government may be considered on merit with a condition to install WHRB and/or steel plant. This letter was issued considering the proceeding of the meeting dated 23.6.2005, perusal of sub-para (ii) of para-(1) of which shows that no expansion proposal except those received before 22.3.2005 shall be allowed in the six blocks named therein. So the proposal received before 22.3.2005 can be considered on case to case basis. But at the same time, in para-(2) of the aforesaid pro¬ceeding dated 23.6.2005 it has been decided that “(s)imilarly, rest 22 pending cases with SPCB as on 22.3.2005 may be considered for issue of NOC by SPCB on merit and with similar stipulation”. Admittedly, the appellant’s application has been received on 22.03.2005. So there is no impediment on the part of the Board Authorities to consider the said application, treating the same to be a pending case as on 22.3.2005, in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 17.6.2009 passed by the State Pollution Control Board, Orissa vide Annex¬ure-9 refusing consent to establish 3rd DRI Kiln in favour of the appellant and direct the Board to consider the application filed by the appellant afresh treating the same to be a pending case as on 22.3.2005 on merit in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. 7. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. Dr. C.R. MOHAPATRA I agree. Appeal allowed.