ORDER

1. The defendant is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff filed a suit for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant from letting out noxious fluids into the river, Neev Pending the suit, the plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction against the defendant. An objection was raised that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. This objection was upheld by the trial Court. On appeal, the appellate Court had disagreed with the conclusion of the trial Court and held that the suit and the application are maintainable and the Court has got jurisdiction to examine the application for injunction and consequently remanded the matter for inquiry. Against that order, the present revision is filed.

2. I think the interpretation placed by the appellate Court is correct. The objection as to the maintainability of the suit is based upon the provisions of S. 58 of the above Act which reads as under :

"58. Bar of jurisdiction. No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an appellate authority constituted under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act."

3. Since it is a new Act, it is necessary to see the object of this Act. The preamble says that the Act is to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water for the establishment and with a view to carrying out the purpose aforesaid, statutory Boards are established. Sec. 2 defines the Board which means the Central Board or State Board. The word, "occupier" in relation to S. 2 (d) means the person who has control over the affairs of the factory or the premises and where the said affairs are entrusted to a managing agent, such agent shall be deemed to be the occupier of the factory or the premises; The word "pollution" was defined under S. 2 (e) of the above Act in the following terms :

"2 (e). "Pollution" means such contamination of water or such alteration of the physical chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance into water (whether directly or indirectly) as may, or is likely to, create a nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to public health, or safety, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses or to the life and health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms."

4. Chapter II deals with the constitution of the Central and State Boards for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution. Chapter V deals with the prevention and control of water pollution. Under that Chapter, Sec 19 gives power to the State Government to restrict the application of the Act to certain areas. Section 20 deals with the powers to obtain information and also survey of any area and gauge and keep records of the flow or volume and other characteristics of any stream or well in such area. Section 22 is another provision which gives power to take water from any stream or a well or samples of any sewage or trade effluents for the purpose of analysis. Section 25 is an important section which imposes restrictions on new outlets and new discharges. Section 26 makes a provision regarding existing discharge of sewage of trade effluent. Section 27 empowers the state Board whether or not to grant its consent to the bringing into use of a new or altered outlet unless the outlet is so constructed as to comply with any conditions imposed by the Board to enable it to exercise its right to take samples of the effluent. Section 28 gives the remedy of any person aggrieved by orders issued by the State Board under Sec. 25, 26, or 27. Thus, it is seen that the State Board is empowered to restrict the new outlets under S. 25. An appeal is provided against the order under S. 28 and S. 58 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding against an order passed by the appellate authority. Section 58 enacts two prohibitions. Firstly, not to entertain an suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the appellate authority constituted under the Act is empowered to determine. Secondly, no injunction shall be granted in respect of any action taken by any authority under the Act in pursuance of the provisions of the Act. This is the only provision barring the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. The section is intended to preserve the statutory protection given to the Boards untouched by civil actions. Now, the present action is only preventing the defendant from polluting water. But this section is not directed to annual any orders passed by the authority constituted under this Act. Now, it is admitted that no orders are passed under the Act, and therefore, any order passed by the Civil Court will not take away the jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the Act. Hence, I am of the view that S. 58 does not prohibit the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding restraining the defendant to cause pollution. The view of the appellate Court is correct. The C. R. P., fails and is, therefore, dismissed. I make no order as to costs.

5. Revision dismissed.