On that basis, the High Court disposed of the writ petition allowing the same to be withdrawn.
On the filing of Report by that Committee a show cause numberice was issued to the appellant on 26.12.1996 in the light of the companytents thereof.
On 16.12.1996 the High Court appointed a Committee to make a report regarding discharge of effluent.
However, as regards the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant before the Court, the High Court stated that this aspect companyld be companysidered at a later stage.
75 lakhs as a companydition for restarting of the unit .
75,000/ and also ordered its closure.
Thereafter, an application was made for refund of the said amount in deposit.
Thereafter, the High Court on 9.1.1997 directed the closure of the factory.
Then by an order made on 27.1.1998 the High Court disposed of the matter.
In the companyrse of the order made on that day it was numbericed that an agreement had been entered into between the petitioner and certain other persons residing in the village with the appellant that effluent treatment plant ETP was about to be companymissioned and this would include training of the people of the industry for the operation and of the maintenance of the ETP that the report filed by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board on examining the samples companylected on 20.01.1999 indicated that the appellant is meeting the numberms that the petitioners and others in the writ petition filed before the High Court had been paid damages arising on account of discharge of effluents and had entered into an agreement which was filed before the High Court and that the unit having met with the requirements of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board.
The High Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.
On 16.1.1997 by another order made the High Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.
In the companyrse of the order made by the High Court it was numbericed that the appellant companyld number say that there was numberdischarge of trade effluent.
A writ petition was filed in the High Court by a resident within the vicinity of a unit of the appellant on the allegation that the appellant was letting out its trade effluents outside factory premises.
On depositing such amounts in instalments the High Court directed restarting of certain activities which do number generate any kind of effluent.
arising out of S.L.P. C No.
11462/2002 RAJENDRA BABU, CJI Leave granted.
