The Court held: ``It will be for the authorities concerned to consider the applications for requisite clearance that may be sought under such laws, and take their own decisions without awaiting any orders from this court hereafter.''

The suo motu petition was initiated on the basis of an AMC report which stated that out of 387 industrial units surveyed in the city, 289 units were operating without any authorised drainage, outlet or trade licence.

The court had directed the closure of all these units. Later, the court permitted these units to commence their activity on a trial basis and asked them not to discharge their untreated effluents. However, the AMC submitted in the court that the units were not complying with the court order. The court observed that it was the duty of the Board to ensure compliance by the units. For this it has to maintain regular supervision and if there was any violation at any level, it was their duty to take action under the law promptly to prevent pollution.

The court held that it was the responsibility of GPCB and AMC to discharge their duties and exercise their powers to ensure that the provisions of law are not violated and that they were properly implemented.