ORDER M.B. Vishwanath J.

1. The learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents present. Heard.

2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner- Foundries prayed that annexures 'J' and 'K' should be quashed.

3. Annexure-J dated 8.6.1989 has been issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board informing the petitioner that the operation of its industries without the previous consent of the State Board under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 attracts penal provisions of Section 39 of the said Act. It is also stated in annexure-J that no person shall operate the unit without valid consent of the Board.

4. Annexure-J brings to the notice of the petitioner the legal consequences, if it does not comply with the provisions of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981. I do not think that there is anything illegal in annexure-J.

5. Annexure-K dated 9.6.1989 is the order passed by the 1st respondent-the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board informing the petitioner that because of health hazards the consent of the Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 is refused in view of the power conferred under Sections 25 and 26 of the said Act.

6. At paragraph 1 of annexure-K "Why the consent of the Board has been refused is stated. The reason given is, that the industry is located on the fore-shore of the Unkal tank which is a source of water supply for Hubli-Dharwar Municipal area. The drinking water source is likely to be polluted due to the operation of the industry and its labour. It is stated that the petitioner has not provided toilet facilities to petitioner-workers etc.

7. It is stated in the statement of objections that the petitioner-industry is adjacent to the lake bund and also very near to the village and so there are chances of fire hazards to the village. It is further stated that coke dust settle on the Unkal tank which is the drinking water source to Hu.bli citizens. It is also clear from the statement of objections that there are complaints regarding the pollution created by running the industry.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure-B. Annexure-B is dated 16.1.1974. It is the opinion given by the Municipal Health Officer, Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation, Hubli as far back as 16.1.1974.

9. In Annexure-B the Municipal Health Officer has stated that the licensee has not been using water for melting cast iron and preparing moulds. He has further given the opinion that the place where the moulds are prepared is about 70 feet away from the highest water mark of the tank and there is nothing like trade effluent coming from the factory. Of course, annexure-B supports the petitioner . The opinion as per annexure-D has been given long ago. Since then much water has flown under the bridge.

10. The contents of annexure-J have to be mentioned again. It also contains the opinion given by the competent body.

11. Annexure-J dated 8.6.1989 also contains the opinion given by the competent body, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. As per the opinion given by the competent body, the industry is located on the foreshore of Unkal tank which is drinking water supply source for the Hubli Dharwad Municipal Council area. The Pollution Control Board on the basis of the Regional Officer's Inspection report, has advised the State Government that the industry should be shifted from the present location.

12. The Pollution Control Board has stated in annexure-J that the petitioner-industry has not provided Air pollution control equipment and the present height of chimney provided by the industry is inadequate and the industry has not provided port hole for monitoring stack emission.

13. The report of the statutory competent body as per annexure-J is a damning piece of evidence against the petitioner.

14. This Court in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume the role of a super-specialist and sit in judgment over the opinion given by a competent body like the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board-respondent No. 1.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.