Order Aggrieved by the direction contained in Reference No.1665 dated 31.05.2013 and the direction contained in letter dated 14.08.2013, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner namely, Rashi Polypack carries on business of manufacturing prior to Plastic Manufacture, Sale and Usage Rule, 1999 came in force. The petitioner made an application on 09.05.2011 for registration under Rule 9 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. The petitioner was earlier granted “consent to operate” under Section 21 of the Air Pollution Act and Section 26 of the Water Pollution Act and the said order was valid upto 31.03.2012. Seeking renewal of “consent to operate”, the petitioner deposited requisite fee alongwith application prior to expiry of the “consent to operate” order. However, vide letter dated 27.04.2013, the petitioner was directed to submit application in Form-I and II, which was replied by the petitioner on 06.05.2013. Without considering the reply of the petitioner that the petitioner has already made application on 09.05.2011 for registration under Rule 9 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, the Regional Officer-respondent no.3 directed the petitioner to stop production till registration from the Board is granted. On 14.08.2013, the respondent no.2 was informed that the application for registration under 2011 Rules would be considered only after the conditions mentioned in “consent to operate” are fully complied with. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the one hand, the respondents are insisted upon registration under the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 for renewal of “consent to operate” and on the other hand, the respondents are not processing the application seeking registration under the 2011 Rules. It is further submitted that under Rule 9(E) of the 2011 Rules, the State Pollution Control Board is under a duty to dispose of the application seeking registration within 90 days however, the application dated 09.05.2011 submitted by the petitioner has not been disposed of till date. It is thus submitted that the respondents are not justified in denying renewal of “consent to operate” on the ground of non-registration under Rule 9 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. 4. It is thus submitted that the respondents are not justified in denying renewal of “consent to operate” on the ground of non-registration under Rule 9 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State Pollution Control Board refers to the impugned letter dated 31.05.2013 (Annexure4) and submits that the said letter indicates that the petitioner has not submitted application for registration under the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. Since, registration under the 2011 Rules is mandatory, the respondent no.3 has rightly directed the petitioner to stop production till the registration is granted by the Board. 5. From the materials brought on record, it appears that the petitioner has already submitted application dated 09.05.2011 for registration under the 2011 Rules. However, it appears that the said application was sent by speed post. Letter dated 31.05.2013 would indicate that the respondent no.3 has informed the petitioner that it has yet not submitted application under the 2011 Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to letter dated 06.05.2013 vide Annexure3 and submits that a communication was already sent to respondent no.3 intimating him that the petitioner has already submitted application for registration under 2011 Rules. Considering the aforesaid facts disclosed in the writ petition, I am of the opinion that after receiving letter dated 31.05.2013, the petitioner should have approached the respondent no.3 with necessary documents establishing submission of application under Rule 9 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. If for any reason, the said application is not traceable, a liberty is reserved with the petitioner to submit a fresh application, which shall be disposed of expeditiously by the respondent-Board. Insofar as, directions contained in letter dated 14.08.2013 are concerned, if any other conditions were imposed while granting “consent to operate” order which was valid upto 31.03.2013, no exception can be taken to the direction to comply with those conditions. However, insofar as, the condition seeking registration under 2011 Rules is concerned, it is made clear that if a decision is not taken on the application for registration under the 2011 Rules, on that count renewal of “consent to operate” would not be withheld, provided the petitioner fulfills other conditions necessary for renewal of “consent to operate”. 6. However, insofar as, the condition seeking registration under 2011 Rules is concerned, it is made clear that if a decision is not taken on the application for registration under the 2011 Rules, on that count renewal of “consent to operate” would not be withheld, provided the petitioner fulfills other conditions necessary for renewal of “consent to operate”. 6. I find no infirmity in the impugned orders and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed however, with the above direction to the respondents.