sponge iron case in Goa

PANJIM: Unhappy with the administrative tribunal, which quashed and set aside the order of the High Court, as well as a sponge iron plant which recommenced the operation of the plant without leave of the court, the High Court has asked for the closure of the unit within a week.



Petitioner Goa Foundation had filed an application in the High Court after the administrative tribunal not only heard an appeal filed by the sponge iron plant-- Jain Udyog Pvt Ltd -- in December against the order of closure passed by the High Court, but also quashed and set aside the order of the High Court. Thereupon, Jain Udyog Pvt Ltd in a letter dated January 18, 2007 informed the GPCB that pursuant to the order of the administrative tribunal, the company had recommenced operation of the plant.



Counsel for the petitioner, Norma Alvares, brought to the notice of the Court that the affidavit of GPCB didn't d isclose any steps taken by the Board to prevent Jain Udyog Pvt Ltd from resuming operations without the leave of the High Court.



In its order dated October 10, 2006 the Court had stated: "In the event the GSPCB seeks to modify or recall the aforesaid stay order dated 6 October 2006, the same shall be done only with prior leave of this court."



The petitioners had demanded for immediate stay of the operation of the sponge iron plant of Jain Udyog Pvt Ltd as they had re-commenced operation of the plant without prior leave of the court as required by the order of the High Court on October 10, 2006. The Court in its order of October 10 had issued closure orders to five existing sponge iron plants in the state on account of non-compliance with consent terms.



Two other sponge iron plants which were also stopped were allowed to resume operations after they were able to satisfy Goa Pollution Control Board on compliance and moved the Court for leave to resume operations, which was granted by a separate order on November 8, imposing detailed conditions and restrictions on the two units.



However, while disposing of the application, the Court observed the respondent is open to make application for appropriate relief.