JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. 1. As all these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007 is the lead case, and the other writ petitions have been filed by persons aggrieved by an interim order passed by the Supreme Court, in proceedings that emanated from W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007 and in which a direction was issued by the Supreme Court on 21.4.2014 that no fresh licences should be issued to sawmills and wood based industries till such time as this Court finally decided the issue in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007. The last mentioned writ petition is one that is filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, by a person residing in Vengola Panchayat, who is aggrieved by the functioning of plywood manufacturing units within the territorial limits of the said Panchayat. In his writ petition, the petitioner alleges that from 2002-03 onwards, paddy lands situated within the limits of the Vengola Panchayat were filled up and used for purposes other than paddy cultivation, by persons who had not obtained any permission for such alternate uses in terms of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. It is also the contention of the petitioner that, very soon plywood manufacturing units began to spring up in the locality, and the said units were using chemicals that were inherently harmful to human/plant life, and the effluents from the said units affected the water sources in the area. It is also his contention that smoke and ash emitted from the said units caused air pollution and, inasmuch as the said units were engaging migrant labourers in connection with their activities, there was a proliferation of such migrant labourers in the area, whose unhygienic living conditions resulted in concentration of human sewage waste in the locality. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is essentially for a direction to the regulatory authorities concerned, not to issue licences to plywood manufacturing units within the territorial limits of the Vengola Panchayat. Litigation History: As this writ petition has been pending before this Court from 2007 onwards, it would be beneficial to refer to the various orders passed by this Court and the Supreme Court, which would throw light on the course taken by this litigation thus far. Litigation History: As this writ petition has been pending before this Court from 2007 onwards, it would be beneficial to refer to the various orders passed by this Court and the Supreme Court, which would throw light on the course taken by this litigation thus far. By an order dated 19.3.2007, a direction was issued to the State Pollution Control Board to conduct an inspection in the locality and submit a report with regard to pollution of air and water by the units in question. The order passed by this Court made it clear that if pollution was found, or it was found that persons are carrying on operations without the necessary consents/licences, prohibitory orders were also to be issued to such units. By way of abundant caution, this Court also directed that no further licence would be issued in respect of plywood industries until further orders. It would appear that pursuant to the said order of this Court, a report was in fact filed by the Pollution Control Board, and taking note of the same, this Court, by an order dated 27.3.2009, granted permission to the Pollution Control Board to renew the existing licences obtained by units if they were otherwise found entitled for such renewal, on merits. 2. It is seen from the pleadings that there was an issue with regard to some of the units functioning in the area without obtaining the necessary No Objection Certificates [NOC] from the Central Empowered Committee [CEC] constituted by the Supreme Court in the judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India and Others, 2002 (9) SCALE 81 and by an order dated 28.6.2011, this Court directed the Government Pleader to get clarifications with regard to the difficulty faced by the units in obtaining NOC from the CEC. Thereafter, on getting the necessary clarification from the Government, by an order dated 30.6.2011, units that did not have the necessary NOC from the CEC were directed to be closed down forthwith, if need be, with the help of police authorities. Aggrieved by the said order, for consideration before a Division Bench which, by an order dated 15.7.2011, found that the interim order issued by the Supreme Court in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad's case [supra] pertained only to forest timber, and was therefore inapplicable to plywood factories processing rubber wood, as opposed to forest timber. Aggrieved by the said order, for consideration before a Division Bench which, by an order dated 15.7.2011, found that the interim order issued by the Supreme Court in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad's case [supra] pertained only to forest timber, and was therefore inapplicable to plywood factories processing rubber wood, as opposed to forest timber. Based on the said distinction that was drawn, the Division Bench permitted the saw mills/plywood factories processing rubber wood to function, and Advocate Commissioners were appointed to report on the functioning of plywood factories in and around Perumbavoor, Kothamangalam and Muvattupuzha. The Division Bench also stayed the operation of the interim order dated 30.6.2011 of the learned Single Judge for a period of three weeks and directed the Writ Petitions to be posted before the learned Single Judge. 3. It would appear that the directions issued by the Division Bench on 15.7.2011, were impugned in a Special Leave Petition that was preferred before the Supreme Court. By its order dated 21.4.2014, the Supreme Court, while remanding the matter to the High Court, requested the High Court to take note of the CEC report dated 26.9.2013, and also directed that no fresh licences should be issued for sawmills and wood based industries till such time as the High Court decides the matter finally. The High Court was also requested to decide on the issue of stoppage of units referred to in the CEC's report aforementioned. Subsequent to the remand from the Supreme Court, the matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court on 17.3.2016, when this Court referred to the CEC report dated 26.9.2013, and directed the Pollution Control Board to take steps to close down those units that were seen functioning without a licence/consent as per the applicable Statutes. This Court also issued directions with regard to preparation of a Comprehensive Environmental Management Plan for Vengola Grama Panchayat, and the State Government was directed to take action in the matter within three months, and report compliance. Thereafter, when it was noticed that sufficient steps had not been taken to close down the illegally functioning units, this Court, by a separate order dated 8.8.2016, directed the Government and the Pollution Control Board to take steps to close down units functioning without licence within 15 days. Thereafter, when it was noticed that sufficient steps had not been taken to close down the illegally functioning units, this Court, by a separate order dated 8.8.2016, directed the Government and the Pollution Control Board to take steps to close down units functioning without licence within 15 days. The Pollution Control Board was also directed to visit each unit functioning in the area to ascertain whether there was compliance with the pollution control measures suggested by the Board. 4. The Pollution Control Board, thereafter, took steps to implement the directions issued by this Court, and submitted a report indicating that, out of the 294 units operating in Vengola Grama Panchayat, only 228 had valid consents/licences. It was stated that closure notices had already been issued to 66 units that did not have any consent/licence, and appropriate directions were issued to 11 industries, which had not closed down pursuant to earlier directions, to necessarily close down. Directions were also issued to the Kerala State Electricity Board to cut off the electric supply to such units. These facts were recorded in the order dated 14.10.2016 passed by this Court. Separate reports with regard to compliance with the closure orders were also called for from the District Collector, the Pollution Control Board and the Kerala State Electricity Board, by another order dated 11.11.2016 of this Court. 5. Thereafter, the matter came up before this Court on several occasions, where the orders passed by this Court indicate that a monitoring was done of the closure of the defaulting units and updated reports were called from the State Government/Pollution Control Board. The last order passed by this Court on 25.1.2019, reads as follows: “3. Out of the total of 291 wood based industries, which are stated to be functioning within the jurisdiction of the Vengola Grama Panchayat, the total number of units that had a valid consent is stated to have been 178, and 10 more units have since been granted consent during the pendency of the Writ Petition, taking the total number of units having consent to 188. It is pointed out that pursuant to the earlier order of this court, dated 17.3.2016, closure orders were issued to 66 units, and in addition to that another 32 units were directed to be closed pursuant to the orders of this court on 3.12.2018. It is pointed out that pursuant to the earlier order of this court, dated 17.3.2016, closure orders were issued to 66 units, and in addition to that another 32 units were directed to be closed pursuant to the orders of this court on 3.12.2018. One unit out of the 66 was granted a consent pursuant to the order of this court dated 3.12.2018. Thus, a total of 97 units (65+32) have now been closed pursuant to the issuance of closure orders against them. The learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board also makes a reference to three units, which are mentioned in Annexure R3(e) to his latest report, which had applied for renewal of consent before 1.12.2018. The said units are listed as follows: S. No. Name of industry Name of owner & Address Remarks 1 Anugraha Timber Industries, Valiyakulam, Arackappady N.A. Kareem Application submitted on 26.6.18 2 S.M. Traders Allapra P.O. Perumbavoor K.A. Muhammed Kunnathu House Rayonpuram P.O. Application submitted on 28.11.18 3 Hikon Plywood Kandanthara Allapra P O M.V. Pareeth Application submitted on 28.11.18 4. It is stated that the applications for renewal, preferred by these units, have not been considered till date, only on account of the wrong mention of units in the earlier order dated 3.12.2018. Taking note of the said submission, we deem it necessary to direct that the Board shall expeditiously consider the application for renewal submitted by the three units aforementioned for renewal of their consent. Taking note of the said submission, we deem it necessary to direct that the Board shall expeditiously consider the application for renewal submitted by the three units aforementioned for renewal of their consent. Over and above the said three units, the Board shall also consider the application for renewal submitted by the following 5 units, which are enumerated in Annexure R3(c) produced along with the latest report of the Pollution Control Board, namely: Industry name Address of the occupier Type of industry Remarks Parackal Industries Kandanthara, Allapra P. O Sajeer P.A. Parackal (H), Kandanthara, Allapra P.O. Perumbavoor Veneer Consent expired on 30.06.2015 - Applied for renewal on 26.3.2016 Sunrise veneer, Vengola Sajeed C.I. Chirackakkudy (H), Allapra P.O. Perumbavoor Core veneer Consent expired on 30.06.2015 - Applied for renewal on 04.05.2015 Champion Plywood Industries, Vettikkattukunnu, Ponjassery M. Assainar, Velakkudy House, Pallikkavala Plywood Consent expired on 30.06.2015 - Applied for renewal on 12.06.2015 New Century Enterprises (Sai Namah), Allapra P.O. Rasheeba Ashraf Plywood, Veneer Consent expired on 30.06.2015 - Applied for renewal on 12.06.2015 Fathima Veneer K.M. Siddik, Karothukudy, Kandanthara, Allapra P.O. Perumbavoor Core Veneer Consent expired on 30.06.2015 - Applied for renewal on 23.05.2016 5. Such consideration shall be in lieu of the 5 units mentioned in the directions issued in our earlier order with respect to units shown as listed under Annexure R3(b) in that order. 6. It is also brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board that 3 units, out of the total number of units originally found to be carrying on wood based activities, have converted to non-wood based industries and hence their case will not come up for consideration in these proceedings. In other words, out of the total number of 291 wood based units identified within the jurisdiction of the Vengola Grama Panchayat, 188 units are functioning with valid consent, three have ceased to function as wood based industries, 8 units have consent renewal applications pending before the Board, and which have been directed to be considered on merits by the orders of this court, and the remaining 97 units have been closed pursuant to the orders passed by this court. 7. As the pleadings have already been completed in these batch of writ petitions, we deem it appropriate to post the batch of writ petitions for final hearing. 7. As the pleadings have already been completed in these batch of writ petitions, we deem it appropriate to post the batch of writ petitions for final hearing. Registry to list these batch of cases for final hearing in the next week.” 6. Since the units functioning without any valid consent have been closed down pursuant to closure orders issued to them by the State Pollution Control Board, what remains to be ensured now is that the units that are currently functioning are doing so by strictly adhering to the pollution control measures suggested by the Board. Towards this end, it would be necessary to refer to the Comprehensive Environment Management Plan prepared for the Vengola Panchayat by ABC Techno Labs India Private Limited, Chennai, at the instance of the State Pollution Control Board. The said agency was engaged by the Board pursuant to a selection made from among agencies having accreditation to the Quality Council of India/National Accreditation Board for Education and Training (NABET) as Environment Impact Assessment Consultants and approved list of consultants maintained by the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change, of the Government of India. The recommendations in the Plan have been accepted by the Board and the Plan was also forwarded to the State Government for its approval. We are informed by the learned Government Pleader, Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan that the State Government has also accorded in-principle approval to the said plan. The Environmental Management Plan suggested is as under: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 4.1 EXISTING SCENARIO There are 294 industries in Vengola Grama Panchayat out of which 70 plywood industries are now in operation. Details of industries category wise are furnished in the Annexure – 1. Main raw material is rubber wood sourced within Kerala. Resin is a bought out item. Rubber wood cuttings arising out of sizing Trimmings of plywood, veneers cuttings are used as fuel for the boilers. 1. Plywood trimmings while using as fuel emit formaldehyde concentration. 2. Existing air pollution control devices are cyclone separator, settling tank (Scrubber) and a stack. 3. Resin containers are stored in open yard and after emptying the resin containers are washed and emptied resulting in leachate causing ground water contamination. 4. Flooring of the processing section area and internal roads are sources of dust emanation. 5. Wood dust generation during sanding and buffing are not extracted through efficient duct and hood system. 6. 3. Resin containers are stored in open yard and after emptying the resin containers are washed and emptied resulting in leachate causing ground water contamination. 4. Flooring of the processing section area and internal roads are sources of dust emanation. 5. Wood dust generation during sanding and buffing are not extracted through efficient duct and hood system. 6. Scientifically designed Septic tank or soak pit as per CPHEEO is not provided. Open storm water drains are existing within premise of industrial area. 7. Most of the ply wood units are using cyclone separator, a tank filled with water to half of its capacity to control emission of particulate matter, VOC from boilers. 4.2 CARRYING CAPACITY OF VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT Carrying capacity of Vengola Grama Panchayat was assessed based on the guidelines for computation of comprehensive environmental pollution Index (CEPI) issued by Central pollution control Board. Methodology for computation of CEPI furnished in the Annexure-8 is based on the data for toxins, scale of industrial activities, concentration of pollutant, impact on people, impact on geological features, potentially affected people, level of exposure, risk to sensitive receptors and inadequacy of pollution control measures. Value of CEPI for each ward in Vengola Grama Panchayat is more or less around 35 which is less than the value of CEPI value 70 which is the maximum value as per CPCB. 4.3 CONTROL MEASURES FOR EXISTING UNITS The primary emissions from the manufacture of plywood include particulate matter (PM10), PM2.5 from log debarking, veneers section plywood trimming, sanding. Formaldehyde emissions also observed where plywood trimming is used as fuel in Boiler. Fuel combustion for heating system generates carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), Sulphur dioxide (SO2) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and formaldehyde emissions besides fine particulate matter. 1. Dust emission from log debarking, plywood trimming, sanding/buffing can be removed effectively through cyclone separator, bag filter or appropriate technology and stack. 2. Fugitive emissions can be minimized through efficient exhaust ventilation system within the premise. 3. It is also recommended that all Block board manufacturing unit should utilize the trimming of plywood for manufacturing of Block Board within the unit or from other plywood industries. 4. Personal Protective Equipments may be made available to the workers and staff deployed in the sections of peeling, sectioning, sanding and trimming. 5. 3. It is also recommended that all Block board manufacturing unit should utilize the trimming of plywood for manufacturing of Block Board within the unit or from other plywood industries. 4. Personal Protective Equipments may be made available to the workers and staff deployed in the sections of peeling, sectioning, sanding and trimming. 5. As the presence of formaldehyde is seen from boiler emission only when plywood edge cutting waste is being used, plywood trimmings should not be used as fuel for Boiler/TFH. 6. Urea Formaldehyde lack in water resistance of the hardened resin owing to the reversibility of the amino methylene link and hence the susceptible to hydrolysis. This need can be overcome by introducing other components like melamine to the UF resin molecules. The problem of subsequent formaldehyde emission can be considered as solved owing to the decrease of the content of formaldehyde in the resins. 7. Fugitive emissions from Glue spreading, hot pressing can be removed by providing hood and high capacity suction device and boifilter or Suitable Air pollution control devices. Necessary technical expertise should be availed from professionals for design and installation. 8. Distance between individual sections of industry should be wide enough and enough exhaust to remove dust particles. Distance between each industry be around 50m. 9. Most of the units have not provided any scientifically designed septic tank or soak pits for proper disposal of Septic tank effluent. Proper design of septic tank as per CPHEEO guidelines shall be provided to avoid ground water contamination. 10. Spillages from glue spreader area and vessel washing is now blended with dust, boiler ash and sent to TSDF for treatment and disposal and same practice shall be continued. 11. Covered Storm water drains within the premises are to be provided for collection of rainwater. 12. The flooring inside the factory premises shall be paved with cement or concrete to avoid leaching of organic contaminants from storage of timber, bark and saw dust. 13. All activities such as loading, unloading, log peeling, Wood Edge cutting, Plywood Trimmings, sanding/bluffing including wood and resin Storage (Urea Formaldehyde) shall be under covered environment with adequate ventilation. 14. If any spillage of resin occurs it should be collected and sent to TSDF. 15. 13. All activities such as loading, unloading, log peeling, Wood Edge cutting, Plywood Trimmings, sanding/bluffing including wood and resin Storage (Urea Formaldehyde) shall be under covered environment with adequate ventilation. 14. If any spillage of resin occurs it should be collected and sent to TSDF. 15. Noise level can be minimized near peeling section by providing noise barriers like walls to about 12ft (4m) so that noise levels in the nearest residential area are within the limit of 55 dB (A). Peeling section shall be relocated 50m away from the boundary of the industrial unit towards process section area. 16. Ear protection for the workers should be provided. Covered shed with good ventilation system will reduce noise levels. 17. Wood waste generated such as plywood trimmings shall be handed over to Block Board manufacturing Units. The practice of handing over of Plywood trimmings and hazardous wastes to TSDF shall be continued. 18. It is suggested that industrial Vacuum cleaner with a filter is recommended. 4.4 NORMS AND CONTROL MEASURES FOR NEW UNITS 1. The distance between industries shall not be less than 50m*. Green belt to an extent 33% of area of proposed industrial site should be earmarked. 2. The minimum setback distance for Plywood industries shall be not less than 25m. 3. Minimum Land requirement for setting up an industry would be around 0.6 Acres. 4. Adequate fire fighting equipment shall be provided. 5. Use of melamine formaldehyde/phenol formaldehyde shall be encouraged as these resins will emit low level concentration of formaldehyde. 6. Resin drums or containers should be stored on concrete platform to avoid leachate in to ground water. If any leakage occurs provision shall be made to collect in a concrete pit and the same may be used to blend with boiler ash and wood dust for further disposal into TSDF. Adequate air pollution control devices like cyclone separator, bag filter/biofilter and stack shall be provided or any appropriate equipment. 7. Industry should have an arrangement with block board Manufactures to utilise the ply wood trimmings. 8. Internal roads shall be either concrete roads or asphalted roads. As per Sitting criteria for plywood industries of KSPCB vide PCB/T4/115/97 dated 20.7.2011. 4.4.1 Setting of More New Industries Setting of new industries may be considered if following provisions are available 1. Infrastructure Facilities like roads to meet traffic requirements. 2. Protected water supply and sewerage facilities shall be made. Internal roads shall be either concrete roads or asphalted roads. As per Sitting criteria for plywood industries of KSPCB vide PCB/T4/115/97 dated 20.7.2011. 4.4.1 Setting of More New Industries Setting of new industries may be considered if following provisions are available 1. Infrastructure Facilities like roads to meet traffic requirements. 2. Protected water supply and sewerage facilities shall be made. 3. Development of an exclusive industrial estate housing only plywood industries. 4. Plywood industries using Melamine formaldehyde/Phenol Formaldehyde shall be allowed as these resins emit low level of formaldehyde. 5. In any new industries, provision of Green belt to an extent of 33% should be earmarked. If the above conditions are ensured new plywood industries may be established. 7. In the light of the recommendations made in the Environmental Management Plan above, we are of the view that these writ petitions can now be disposed by directing that the units that have valid consents, as also those who have obtained or are yet to obtain, a renewal of consent, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court to the Pollution Control Board, continue to function only in strict adherence to the conditions stipulated in the consent granted to them, and we do so. The Pollution Control Board shall also ensure that the norms and control measures suggested in the Environmental Management Plan for existing units, are also inserted to the extent applicable as conditions in the consent orders issued, or to be issued, to the various units, making it clear that those infrastructural and other requirements/measures envisaged in the Environmental Management Plan, if not already available in the existing units, should be put in place within the next six months. The units should be informed that if the additional requirements of infrastructure/machinery/measures, as envisaged by the Environmental Management Plan, are not put in place within the time granted, the consent granted to the unit will be cancelled after due notice to them. 8. As regards issuance of fresh consents to units that are to be set up in future, the State Pollution Control Board shall ensure that the additional norms and control measures specified in the Environmental Management Plan are available in the unit concerned, before granting a consent in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. 8. As regards issuance of fresh consents to units that are to be set up in future, the State Pollution Control Board shall ensure that the additional norms and control measures specified in the Environmental Management Plan are available in the unit concerned, before granting a consent in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. This shall also apply to those units, as have been granted consents for the first time after 21.04.2014, the date of the interim order of the Supreme Court that directed that no fresh licence should be granted to plywood/wood based units pending disposal of this writ petition. 9. In as much as the aforementioned interim order of the Supreme court was to operate only till the disposal of this writ petition, we make it clear that in the event of a unit obtaining a consent or renewal thereof from the Pollution Control Board, based on the directions issued in this judgment, the other statutory authorities concerned such as the respective Local authorities, Forest department etc. shall process the applications, if any preferred by the units concerned, for licences under the respective statutes, based on the consent obtained by the unit from the Pollution Control Board. For the sake of clarity, and to enable the respective statutory authorities to consider the applications preferred by the units, the interdiction by the Supreme Court through its order dated 21.04.2014 shall be seen as not operating beyond the date of this judgment. We now turn to the other writ petitions and shall deal with each of them separately. W.P. (C) No. 16795/2016: 10. The petitioner is stated to be running a 'veneer peeling' unit in the name and style of Al Ameen Plywood at Kandanthara, within the jurisdiction of the Vengola Grama Panchayat. It is stated that the unit has been registered with the Department of Industries and Commerce of the Government of Kerala as an S.S.I unit, and also has a D & O licence issued by the Panchayat. The petitioner is stated to have filed an application dated 9.5.2013 before the Pollution Control Board for consent to operate its unit. On certain defects being noted by the Pollution Control Board in the said application, the petitioner was directed to file a fresh application for consent to operate, after curing the defects pointed out by the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner is stated to have filed an application dated 9.5.2013 before the Pollution Control Board for consent to operate its unit. On certain defects being noted by the Pollution Control Board in the said application, the petitioner was directed to file a fresh application for consent to operate, after curing the defects pointed out by the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner is stated to have preferred a fresh application on 23.7.2014. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P12 notice dated 22.4.2016 that was served on him, requiring him to close down his unit for not having a valid consent to operate. The prayer of the writ petitioner is essentially for quashing the said notice [Ext.P12] and to direct the Pollution Control Board to issue a consent to operate, by acting on Ext.P7 application dated 23.7.2014 submitted by him. 10.2. The counter affidavit filed by the Pollution Control Board indicates that the Board has not considered the application for consent to operate solely on account of the order dated 21.4.2014 passed by the Supreme Court restraining the Board from issuing fresh licences to sawmills and wood based industries. 10.3. In the light of the directions already issued to the Pollution Control Board, while dealing with W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, we dispose this writ petition, by directing the Pollution Control Board to consider the application for consent to operate, preferred by the writ petitioner, on the basis of the directions issued in this judgment. The case of the petitioner shall be treated as one involving an application for consent by a new unit, and orders shall be passed on the application for consent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already done. The continued operation of Ext.P12 closure notice would depend on the decision taken by the Pollution Control Board on the application for consent to operate submitted by the petitioner. W.P. (C) No. 18621/2016: 11. The petitioner is stated to be running a small packing case production unit, which has obtained a registration as a 'S.S.I unit'. It is stated that the unit has also obtained a NOC from the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Department, Ernakulam. W.P. (C) No. 18621/2016: 11. The petitioner is stated to be running a small packing case production unit, which has obtained a registration as a 'S.S.I unit'. It is stated that the unit has also obtained a NOC from the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Department, Ernakulam. The petitioner had submitted an application for consent to operate on 29.7.2014, and the prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on the said application, expeditiously. 11.2. In a statement filed on behalf of the Pollution Control Board, it is indicated that the Board has not considered the application for consent to operate solely on account of the order dated 21.4.2014 passed by the Supreme Court, restraining the Board from issuing fresh licences to sawmills and wood based industries. 11.3. Under such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to dispose the writ petition with a direction to the Pollution Control Board to consider the application for consent to operate, by treating the case of the petitioner as a new unit seeking a consent to operate. The Board shall adhere to the directions issued in this judgment, while dealing with the application of the petitioner and passing orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already done. W.P. (C) No. 18622/2016: 12. The petitioner is stated to be running a packing case production unit, which has been functioning from 1984. Although the petitioner states that he has a S.S.I registration, and licence from the Department of Factories and Boilers, as also the requisite NOC from the Fire and Rescue Department, it does not have a valid consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board. It is stated that Ext.P8 application for consent to operate was submitted before the Pollution Control Board on 29.7.2014, but no orders have been passed on the said application by the Board. It is therefore that he has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction to the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 application, expeditiously. 12.2. It is therefore that he has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction to the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 application, expeditiously. 12.2. In a statement filed on behalf of the Pollution Control Board, it is indicated that the Board has not considered the application for consent to operate solely on account of the order dated 21.4.2014 passed by the Supreme Court, restraining the Board from issuing fresh licences to sawmills and wood based industries. 12.3. Under such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to dispose the writ petition with a direction to the Pollution Control Board to consider the application for consent to operate, by treating the case of the petitioner as a new unit seeking a consent to operate. The Board shall adhere to the directions issued in this judgment, while dealing with the application of the petitioner and passing orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already done. W.P. (C) No. 19542/2016: 13. The petitioner is stated to be running a sawmill under the name and style of “Sree Ayyappa Industries.” While the said unit is stated to have been registered as a S.S.I unit and also possessed D & O licence for various years, it was never granted a consent to operate by the Pollution Control Board. It is the case of the petitioner that they had submitted an application for consent to operate as early as in 2011, but the said application was not considered by the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner has not produced a copy of the application for consent to operate along with the writ petition. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P12 closure notice issued by the Pollution Control Board to the unit on the ground that it does not have a valid consent to operate. 13.2. In the light of the directions in this judgment while disposing W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, we direct that, if the petitioner has preferred an application for consent to operate, the Pollution Control Board shall treat the application as one filed by a new unit seeking consent to operate, and dispose the same in accordance with the directions in this judgment, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already done. The continued operation of Ext.P12 closure notice would depend on the decision taken by the Pollution Control Board on the application for consent to operate submitted by the petitioner. W.P. (C) No. 22116/2016: 14. The petitioner in this writ petition is also the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 16795/2016. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 notice issued to him by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Vengola, KSEB, by which, he was informed that electric supply to his unit would be disconnected based on the instructions received from the Pollution Control Board, which found the petitioner's unit disentitled to continue in the absence of any consent to operate the unit. It is seen that the interim prayer of the petitioner, to stay the operation of Ext.P3 notice, was rejected by a learned Single Judge, and the said order was confirmed by a Division Bench in appeal. Thus, there is no electric connection to the petitioner's unit, as of now. 14.2. In the light of the directions given in this judgment with regard to the petitioner's unit in W.P. (C) No. 16795/2016, we dispose this writ petition by clarifying that, in the event of the petitioner obtaining a fresh consent to operate in respect of his unit, pursuant to the directions in this judgment, it will be open to him to seek a re-connection of electric supply from the KSEB, and on an application filed by the petitioner for the said purpose, the competent among the respondents shall consider the same taking note of the consent, if any, obtained by the petitioner's unit from the Pollution Control Board. W.P. (C) No. 22219/2016: 15. The petitioner is stated to be the proprietor of Chandrika Furniture and Chandrika Sawmill and Industries, both units functioning within the limits of the Vengola Grama Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that the units were operating with due licences under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act as also the Department of Factories and Boilers. It is stated that the units also had NOC's from the Fire and Rescue Services. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P8 application for consent to operate the first unit was submitted to the 2nd respondent Pollution Control Board as early as on 28.3.2016, and a similar application was also submitted in respect of the sawmill and industries [Ext.P16]. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P8 application for consent to operate the first unit was submitted to the 2nd respondent Pollution Control Board as early as on 28.3.2016, and a similar application was also submitted in respect of the sawmill and industries [Ext.P16]. The said applications however were not processed by the Pollution Control Board, and while so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P17 closure notice by the Pollution Control Board. Based on the said notice issued by the Pollution Control Board, the Kerala State Electricity Board also issued Exts.P20 and P21 notices proposing the disconnection of electric supply to the said units. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Exts.P17, P20 and P21, and seeks a direction to the Pollution Control Board to consider Exts.P8 and P16 applications for consent to operate the units of the petitioner. 15.2. In the light of the directions issued in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, the writ petition is disposed directing the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 and P16 applications for consent to operate preferred by the petitioner, on merits, if not already done, taking note of the directions issued in this judgment, and by treating the applications as pertaining to a new unit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the entitlement of the petitioner to a new electric connection as also the continued operation of Ext.P17 closure notice will depend upon the orders to be passed by the Pollution Control Board on the applications submitted by the petitioner for consent to operate. W.P. (C) No. 22714/2016: 16. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of plywood, black board and veneer. It is the case of the petitioner that he had submitted an application for consent to operate before the Pollution Control Board on 1.8.2014 [Ext.P3], but the application was not processed by the Pollution Control Board. In the meanwhile, based on the directions issued from this Court, Exts.P8 and P9 closure notices were issued to the petitioner on the ground that he did not have a valid consent to operate the unit. 16.2. In the meanwhile, based on the directions issued from this Court, Exts.P8 and P9 closure notices were issued to the petitioner on the ground that he did not have a valid consent to operate the unit. 16.2. In the light of the directions issued in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, the writ petition is disposed, directing the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application for consent to operate preferred by the petitioner, on merits, if not already done, taking note of the directions issued in this judgment, and by treating the application as pertaining to a new unit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The operation of Exts.P8 and P9 orders will depend upon the orders to be passed by the Pollution Control Board on Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner for consent to operate. W.P. (C) No. 23211/2016: 17. The petitioner is stated to be running a small scale industry from 1973 onwards, which was subsequently converted as a sawmill, and later as a plywood unit. It is stated that for establishing the plywood unit, consent to establish was issued by the Pollution Control Board in 2007 [Ext.P3]. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P10 application for renewal of consent to operate was submitted before the Pollution Control Board on 13.7.2015, but the application was not considered in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in connected writ petitions. It is stated that on account of the non-renewal of the consent by the Pollution Control Board, the other authorities such as the Forest authorities as also the Panchayat authorities, are refusing to renew the licences issued to the petitioner. It is under those circumstances that the petitioner seeks a direction to the Pollution Control Board to consider Ext.P10 application for renewal of consent to operate. 17.2. It is under those circumstances that the petitioner seeks a direction to the Pollution Control Board to consider Ext.P10 application for renewal of consent to operate. 17.2. In the light of the directions issued in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, the writ petition is disposed directing the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 application, on merits, if not already done, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, by ascertaining whether the application is one for renewal of an earlier consent to operate already granted to the petitioner or it is an application seeking consent to operate for the first time. In the latter event, the application of the petitioner for consent to operate shall be treated as one preferred by a new unit, and dealt with accordingly, based on the directions in this judgment. It is made clear that in the event of the petitioner obtaining a consent to operate or a renewal thereof, the Panchayat authorities as also the Forest authorities shall consider the application, if any, preferred by the petitioner for licences under the respective enactments based on the consent to operate received from the Pollution Control Board. W.P. (C) No. 23272/2016: 18. The petitioner is stated to be the proprietor of M/s.Karothukudy Plywoods situated within the limits of Vengola Village. It is stated that the unit was registered as a small scale unit, and the petitioner had the necessary licences and NOC's from the Panchayat and Forest authorities to carry on his activity. It is further stated that the unit had obtained a consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board on 16.11.2012 [Ext.P11]. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that his application for licence before the Panchayat was not considered by the Panchayat authorities on the ground that the Supreme Court had directed that no fresh licence would be issued to wood based industries in Vengola Panchayat during the pendency of W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007. Citing the absence of a valid licence, the petitioner was also served with Ext.P17 closure notice by the Industries Department of the Government of Kerala. 18.2. Citing the absence of a valid licence, the petitioner was also served with Ext.P17 closure notice by the Industries Department of the Government of Kerala. 18.2. In the light of the directions issued in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, the writ petition is disposed directing the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on any application, preferred by the petitioner, for renewal of the consent to operate the unit, if not already done, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, by ascertaining whether the application filed by the petitioner is for renewal of an earlier consent to operate granted or is one for a fresh consent to operate. In the latter event, the application of the petitioner shall be treated a one preferred by a new unit, and dealt with accordingly, based on the directions in this judgment. On the petitioner obtaining a consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board, he may produce the same before the Panchayat authorities for getting the necessary licence to operate the unit. The continued operation of Ext.P17 notice would depend upon whether or not the petitioner obtains the necessary consent from the Pollution Control Board and other statutory licences from the respective statutory authorities for continuing with his activities. W.P. (C) No. 23290/2016: 19. The petitioner is stated to be the proprietor of M/s. Vrindavan Veneers, engaged in the manufacturing of core veneer from rubber wood. It is stated that the unit had a consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board, and the said consent was renewed till 30.6.2018. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of a D & O licence by the Panchayat, on the ground that the Supreme Court had, in a connected writ petition, restrained the Panchayat from granting fresh licence. 19.2. In the light of the directions issued in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, the writ petition is disposed directing the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on any application for renewal of consent to operate preferred by the petitioner, on merits, if not already done, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, taking note of the directions issued in this judgment. In the event of the petitioner obtaining renewal of the consent to operate, he shall produce the same before the Panchayat authorities, who shall consider the application for licence, on merits, in the light of the consent to operate so obtained from the Pollution Control Board. The continued operation of Ext.P14 notice will depend upon the outcome of the consideration of the petitioner's application for licence by the Panchayat. W.P. (C) No. 24051/2016: 20. The petitioner is stated to be conducting a core veneer manufacturing unit at Vengola Grama Panchayat. It is stated that the petitioner had a valid consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board till 30.6.2015 [Ext.P3]. It is her case that although Ext.P7 revised application for renewal of consent to operate was submitted before the Pollution Control Board, the same has not been considered till date. In the writ petition, the petitioner seeks an earlier consideration of Ext.P7 revised application. 20.2. In the light of the directions issued in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, the writ petition is disposed directing the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 revised application for renewal of the consent to operate preferred by the petitioner, on merits, if not already done, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, by treating the application as pertaining to an existing unit, for the purposes of implementing the directions in this judgment. W.P. (C) No. 24042/2016: 21. The petitioner is stated to be conducting a wood packing case and core veneer manufacturing unit at Vengola Grama Panchayat. It is stated that the petitioner had a valid consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board till 30.6.2015 [Ext.P3]. In the writ petition, it is his case that notwithstanding his application [Ext.P4] submitted for renewal of the consent to operate, no orders have been passed on the same by the Pollution Control Board. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has also been served with Exts.P8 and P9 closure notices on the ground that he does not have a valid consent to operate. 21.2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has also been served with Exts.P8 and P9 closure notices on the ground that he does not have a valid consent to operate. 21.2. In the light of the directions issued in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, the writ petition is disposed directing the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application for renewal of the consent to operate preferred by the petitioner, on merits, if not already done, by treating the application as pertaining to an existing unit for the purposes of implementing the directions in this judgment, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The continued operation of Exts.P8 and P9 closure notices will depend upon the decision to be taken by the Pollution Control Board on the application for renewal of consent submitted by the petitioner. W.P. (C) No. 28063/2016: 22. The petitioner is a partnership firm conducting a plywood manufacturing unit in the Mini Industrial Estate at Vengola. It is the case of the petitioner that the unit has a valid consent to operate, which is renewed till 3.6.2018 [Ext.P3]. The petitioner is also stated to have a licence from the Department of Factories and Boilers as also a licence from the Divisional Forest Officer valid till 19.3.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that while he seriously disputes the stand of the Panchayat authorities that he would require D & O licence for carrying on his activities, he had, in order to avoid any confrontation with the Panchayat, submitted Ext.P11 application for D & O licence before the Panchayat authorities. While no action was taken on the said application, the petitioner was served with Ext.P10 notice by the Industrial Department, directing it to close down the unit on the ground that it did not have a valid licence from the Panchayat. 22.2. In the light of the directions issued in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, the writ petition is disposed directing the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on the application for renewal of consent to operate preferred by the petitioner, on merits, if not already done, by treating the application as pertaining to an existing unit, for the purposes of implementing the directions in this judgment, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the event of the petitioner obtaining a renewal of the consent to operate, he shall produce the same before the Panchayat authorities, who shall consider the same for the issuance of a licence to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules. The continued operation of Ext.P10 notice will depend upon the decision of the Panchayat on the application for licence submitted by the petitioner. W.P. (C) No. 30135/2016: 23. The petitioner is stated to be running a micro industrial unit manufacturing wooden door frames, wooden window frames, wooden door in the name and style of “Noble Wood Crafts.” It is the case of the petitioner that she had a valid licence issued by the respondent Panchayat, and while she had applied to the Pollution Control Board for a consent to operate through an application dated 28.7.2014 [Ext.P6], the said consent to operate was not granted. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also received a closure notice [Ext.P8] from the Pollution Control Board and also a letter from the Kerala State Electricity Board threatening disconnection of electric supply to the unit on the ground that she did not have a valid consent to operate. 23.2. In the light of the directions issued in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, the writ petition is disposed directing the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 application for the consent to operate preferred by the petitioner, on merits, if not already done, by treating the application as one preferred by a new unit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the event of the petitioner obtaining the consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board, she may utilise the same for obtaining the other statutory licences and apply for a fresh electric connection to the KSEB. The continued operation of Ext.P8 communication will depend upon the outcome of the decision of the Pollution Control Board on the application preferred by the petitioner for consent to operate. W.P. (C) No. 576/2017: 24. The prayer sought for in this writ petition being identical in nature to the prayers in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, but pertaining to various Panchayats other than the Vengola Grama Panchayat also. W.P. (C) No. 576/2017: 24. The prayer sought for in this writ petition being identical in nature to the prayers in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, but pertaining to various Panchayats other than the Vengola Grama Panchayat also. We find that inasmuch as the reliance placed by the petitioner, to fortify his contentions in the writ petition, are on the order passed by the Supreme Court in proceedings arising from W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, the directions already issued by this Court in the said writ petition shall govern this case also, to the extent it pertains to Vengola Grama Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioner with regard to the unauthorised operation of units, within the territorial limits of other Panchayats, is left open to be considered as and when a writ petition is preferred bringing to the notice of this Court specific instances of violation by units within the territorial limits of the respective Panchayats. On account of the vague pleadings in the writ petition, no relief can be granted against units other than the units operating in Vengola Grama Panchayat, which is the subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007. W.P. (C) No. 35253/2017: 25. The petitioner is stated to be running a plywood unit in the name and style of M/s. Sundek Industries within the jurisdiction of the Vengola Grama Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that the unit obtained a consent to establish and operate in the year 2007, and on the expiry of the said consent, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application dated 13.7.2015 before the Pollution Control Board for renewal of the consent to operate. In the writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application, expeditiously, so that the petitioner can use the same for obtaining the statutory licences under other enactments. 25.2. In the light of the directions issued in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, the writ petition is disposed directing the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application, if not already done, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, by ascertaining whether the application is one for renewal of an earlier consent to operate already granted to the petitioner or it is an application seeking consent to operate for the first time. In the latter event, the application of the petitioner for consent to operate shall be treated as one preferred by a new unit, and dealt with accordingly, based on the directions in this judgment. W.P. (C) No. 41065/2018: 26. The petitioners are stated to be proprietors of plywood and core veneer small scale industries situated at Vengola Grama Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioners that they have valid consents to operate from the Pollution Control Board as evidenced by Exts.P1 to P13 and P28. It is stated that thereafter applications had been preferred for renewal of the consent to operate as evidenced by Exts.P14 to P26 and Ext.P29 receipts. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on the renewal applications, evidenced by Exts.P14 to P26 and P29. 26.2. In the light of the directions issued in W.P. (C) No. 9155/2007, the writ petition is disposed directing the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Exts.P14 to P26 and P29 applications, if not already done, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in accordance with the directions issued in this judgment. The Board shall ascertain whether the initial consent to operate to the petitioners units was granted after 21.4.2014, and if so, the consent granted to the petitioners units shall be treated as consent granted to new units, and the directions in this judgment applied accordingly while disposing the applications for renewal of consent to operate submitted by the petitioners.