ORDER In this petition the petitioner has prayed for extension of time granted by order dated 3rd April. 2012 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3277 of 2011 and analogous cases whereby time was granted to fulfil the conditions imposed by the Central Pollution Control Board to ensure that running of Iron Ore Crusher do not cause any health hazard. 2. The conditions are as follows:- I. Providing permanent boundary wall. II. Paved internal roads and roads around units. III. Comprehensive enclosures of crusher and screen units with vent attached with PCDs. IV. Submission of information to JSPCB on source of raw material quantity processed daily dispatched and destination on monthly basis to keep vigil on illegal mining. 3. By order dated 19th January, 2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3277 of 2011 and analogous cases this Court had fixed 31st March 2012 for fulfilling the Condition Nos. I, II & IV. By order dated 3rd April, 2012 time was extended up to 15th June, 2012. With regard to Condition No. III it was directed that the petitioners would approach the manufacturers as per the approved specification of the Pollution Control Devices (PCDs.) within a period of one month which shall be produced for approval before the appropriate authority. The concerned authority was directed to complete the formalities of approval within two weeks thereafter and installation was to be made within two weeks from the date of grant of approval by the competent authority. The compliance of Condition No. III was to be ensured within a period of 21/2 months thereafter. In the meanwhile the petitioner was allowed to continue to function for a period of three months from the date of the order. 4. It has been stated that immediately after the order was passed by this Court the petitioner took steps for complying with the orders dated 19th January, 2012. Heduly complied with Condition Nos. I, II & IV within the prescribed extended time. 5. For compliance of Condition No. III the petitioner approached the manufactures as well as Pollution Control Board for grant of approval. It has been stated that a meeting was held and a committee was constituted for the purpose of specification. The said Committee is said to have fixed the standard and given its recommendation but till date the same has not been approved by the Jharkhand state Pollution Control Board (JSPCB). It has been stated that a meeting was held and a committee was constituted for the purpose of specification. The said Committee is said to have fixed the standard and given its recommendation but till date the same has not been approved by the Jharkhand state Pollution Control Board (JSPCB). In absence of approval the petitioner could not comply with the Condition No. III within the prescribed time and prayer has been made on the said ground for extension of time at least two months from the dote of grant of approval by the JSPCB. 6. Tile petition has been opposed by the respondents Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey learned counsel appearing on behalf of the JSPCB vehemently argued that the petitioner is at fault and he has no. I complied with the Condition No. III within the time granted by this Court. It has been submitted that on the advice of the Expert Committee specification for the device has been recommended as far back as on 17th April, 2012 in anticipation of proposed approval but in spite of the same the petitioner has not installed PCDs. Some units have partially complied with the conditions and some have not complied with at all. The petitioner does not deserve for further extension of time for complying with the Condition No. III. He further submitted that as per his instruction the required approval of PCDs has been also granted by the JSPCB. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. By orders dated 19th January, 2012/3rd April, 2012 time was granted for fulfilling the conditions imposed by the Central Pollution Control Board. For installation of Comprehensive enclosures of crusher and screen units with vent attached with PCDs, (Condition No. III), time was granted for 21/2 months after the approval by the JSPCB. Though it has been emphatically asserted by learned counsel for the JSPCB that the specification of the device has been recommended by Expert Committee on 17th April, 2012 and the same has been approved by JSPCB, no such order of approval of the said device by the JPCB has been either communicated to the petitioner or the same has been produced in this Court. However, a copy of the notification dated 17th April, 2012 has been shown in the Court which clearly mentions that the recommendation of the said Committee is subject to approval by the JSPCB. There is no material on record to show that the said recommendation of the Committee regarding specification of PCDs, has been approved by the JSPCB. 8. In view of the above, I find reasonable ground made out in the petition for extension of time to comply with Condition No. III. 9. Considering the above this petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to fulfil the Condition No. III within two months from the date of communication of the approval of the PCDs by the JSPCB. 10. Since the JSPCB has not produced any order of the approval in case of order is already passed, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner individually in writing for the purpose of fulfilling the Condition No. III within the time allowed to them. Petition disposed of.