JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.

1. W.P.(PIL) No. 4572 of 2003 is filed by the petitioner therein claiming to be in public interest. The prayer therein is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 8 to ensure that no sewerage or affluent is drained into a public pathway in a residential area as was being done by respondent No. 9 carrying on the manufacture of soap polluting the environment. According to the petitioner, the Industry run by respondent No. 9 causes environmental pollution and the industry is run in violation of the Environment Protection Act, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. Respondent No. 9 the industry, resisted the application by pleading that the litigation was not a public interest litigation; that it was an engineered private interest litigation filed as a ruse to get over an order passed by the concerned Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the writ petition ought no to be entertained as a public interest litigation. On merits, it is contended that the industry was only a small scale industry and it was not really causing any pollution and there was no justification in preventing the industry from being run in the premises. The industry had come into existence first and the residential colony had developed around it thereafter and in this situation, the residents of the colony cannot complain of pollution, since the Court has also to consider integrated development while dealing with complaints of pollution.

2. The State Pollution Control Board, which we are sorry to say, was remiss in performing its duties and in ensuring the enforcement of the Environment (Protection) Act, the Air Act and the Water Act and the Noise Pollution Control Rules, moved into action only upon the filing of this writ petition. The Pollution Control Board has now filed a counter affidavit stating that the Industry concerned run by respondent No. 9 has not obtained the requisite permissions under the Air Act and the Water Act and it was, in fact, causing pollution, it not having taken the required measures to control pollution and in view of this, respondent No. 9 was called upon to stop the running of the industry, but respondent No. 9 ignored the direction of the State Pollution Control Board and in the circumstances respondent No. 9 was liable to be prevented by this Court from running the industry in the premises in question. On behalf of the State Pollution Control Board, a grievance was voiced that even when the Pollution Control Board takes action under the Act and issues directions to the industries violating the Pollution Control norms and directs the stopping of their working until further orders, the authorities of the Government like the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, or officers under them, do not give any cooperation or help to the State Pollution Control Board and the Board is placed in a helpless position by not being able to enforce its orders and ensure a pollution free environment, or an environment with pollution kept under control and within the permissible limits. This grievance of the State Pollution Control Board cannot be ignored. Experience has shown that Deputy Commissioners and the Superintendents of Police of the various districts are either totally ignorant of the Environment protection laws, or have no idea of their duties and obligation to help the State Pollution Control Board in enforcing those laws and the need to protect the lives of citizens guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This ignorance or calousness of the Deputy Commissioners and Superintendents of Police of various districts in the State cannot be condemned too strongly. At least, now it is hoped that these authorities will wake up to their duties and responsibilities to ensure a clean environment, which is the right of every citizen, which these authorities as public servants, are expected to subserve. They also owe a duty to posterity. Incidentally, we may notice that even in the capital city of Ranchi, the concerned authorities do not even appear to be aware of the existence of the Noise Pollution Control Rules and the restrictions placed by these rules on the use of public address systems in the city.

3. Thus, finding that respondent No. 9 did not even have the requisite permissions under the Air Act and the Water Act and was seen to be defying the directions of the State Pollution Control Board, we issued an interim direction in this case directing respondent No. 9 to close down its unit and directed the concerned Government officials to ensure that our direction in that behalf was obeyed by respondent No. 9. It is now reported that the industry has complied with the direction of the State Pollution Control Board to stop its working. In that contest, counsel for respondent No. 9 requested that the writ petition itself may be heard expeditiously.

4. Meanwhile, respondent No. 9 in the above writ petition filed W.P.(C) No. 4167 of 2003 seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notices issued by the Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, calling upon respondent No. 9 to stop the working of the Industry. The challenge is essentially on the ground that the order in that behalf could be issued only by the Pollution Control Board in terms of Section 31-A of the Air Act and the order having been issued by the Secretary to the Board, the same was without, authority. As regards the Water Act, it is contended that no permission was required in the circumstances of the case. This writ petition was also called up for being heard along with W.P. (PIL) No. 4572 of 2003 since the issues involved were intrinsically and inextricably inter-linked and called for an analogous consideration. The respondents therein resist this writ petition by pointing out that the petitioner therein, the polluting industry, has not complied with the requirements of the Air Act and the Water Act and especially in the context of the public interest litigation already filed in this Court and which is being heard analogously, there was no reason to grant any relief to the polluting industry in this writ petition. Thus, the dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for.

5. It is seen that the polluting industry started production on 15.12.1980. On 23.3.1994 the Water Act came into force and Section 24 of the Act prohibited the use of streams, wells, sewers or land for disposal of polluting water. Section 25 of the Act prevents the establishment and use of or creation of any outlet or sewerage without obtaining the prior consent of the State Pollution Control Board. Even for an existing industry, like the one run by the polluting industry in this case, consent had to be applied for and obtained within the time specified in the section. The Air Act came into force on 29.3.1981. Under Section 21 of the Act, prior consent of the State Pollution Control Board was a must. The restriction applied even to an existing industry and an application for consent to continue the industry had to be made in terms of Section 21 of the Act. Thus, if was necessary for the polluting industry in this case, to seek the consent of the Board within the time fixed by the respective enactments, which introduced provisions for consent. The polluting industry did not even apply for the requisite consents under the two enactments within the time prescribed. It is seen that an application for consent under the Air Act has been made on 18.7.2003 after the first communication was issued by the State Pollution Control Board on 10.7.2003 calling upon the industry to stop its working in view of the violation of the provisions of the Air Act. That the industry had no applied for the requisite consent from the State Pollution Control Board is especially pleaded by the Board in its counter affidavit in public interest litigation. It is not disputed by the polluting industry, except by pointing out that it had made the application under the Air Act on 18.7.2003 and according to it, it need not make an application for consent under the Water Act. Thus, on the admitted facts, it is clear that there is violation of the environmental protection laws by the polluting industry, respondent No. 9 in the public interest litigation. The said industry is, therefore, liable to be restrained from carrying on its activities in the premises in question without seeking and obtaining the requisite consents from the State Pollution Control Board under the relevant enactments.

6. It is contended on behalf of the industry that it is a small scale industry ' and in terms of the order issued by the Central Government in that behalf, a small ' scale industry is exempt from the need to obtain consent. But the notification relied on indicates that the necessity to obtain consent is dispensed with, only in respect of industries other than the specified industries. The industries involved in hazardous processes are outside the exemption. This is clear from the Guidelines for establishment, expansion, modernization and diversification of Industries issued by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, which is applicable to the industry in question. In Annexure 4 of the guidelines, while describing the industries involved in hazardous processes, a soap unit is linked with petroleum industry and the running of a soap industry or a soap unit, is considered as an activity involving a hazardous process. Therefore, nothing turns on the argument raised on behalf of the polluting industry that its soap unit is a small scale unit and hence it did not require the consent of the State Pollution Control Board.

7. The main argument attempted by the learned senior counsel for the polluting industry was that the writ petitioner in the public interest litigation had not come with clean hands and the litigation was really a private interest litigation. Counsel pointed out that the writ petitioner was related to, or was connected with the person against whom an order had been passed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the writ was filed after that proceeding ended against that relative and in favour of the industry. The present writ petition was filed seeking to get over the effect of that order. This submission is, of course, sought to be controverted on behalf of the writ petitioner. But assuming that the writ petitioner in the public interest litigation had some sort of connection or interest in the person against whom an order under Section 133 of the Code or Criminal Procedure was passed the fact remains that we have an industry run in a residential locality, or an area which has become a residential locality, without obtaining consent from the State Pollution Control Board in terms of the Water Act and Air Act. In fact, two reports of the State Pollution Control Board produced before us also indicate that hazardous substances are stored in the premises without any care or protection and they themselves pose a potential threat to the neighbourhood. In such a situation, even assuming that the approach to this Court was not with a pure mind, on finding such a blatant violation of the environmental protection laws, it appears to us to be the duty of this. Court to interfere and restrain the industry from functioning unit it satisfies the requirement of the relevant environmental protection laws. As observed by the Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996 (5) SCC 281 the refusal or failure to enforce a law enacted in public interest is a worse crime than not having a law at all. Viewed from that angle, there cannot be any doubt that this Court has to step in and prevent the polluting industry from carrying on its activities without reference to the environmental protection laws and without seeking and obtaining the necessary consents from the State Pollution Control Board. It is in this context that we remind the Deputy Commissioners and the Superintendents of Police of all districts that they would also be adjudged to be equally guilty of failing to enforce the environmental protection laws, which as indicated by the Supreme Court, is a graver crime than not having a law at all. In the circumstances, the argument that the writ petitioner in the public interest litigation has not approached us with clean hand and hence, we should not interfere, has to be rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the industry, in support of W.P.(C) 4167 of 2003 cited decisions of the Karnataka High Court and the Orissa High Court to contend that the power under Section 31-A of the Air Act had to be exercised by the State Pollution Control Board itself and not by the Secretary. We do not think that for the purpose of this case, we need go into that question, since in the public interest litigation filed before us, we are satisfied that the industry is causing pollution, has violated the relevant laws and has also not complied with the prescribed safeguards by the Air Act and the Water Act and the Environmental Protection Act. Since we are satisfied that the relief in public interest has to be granted in that writ petition, it is inappropriate to interfere with the direction in that behalf issued on behalf of the State Pollution Control Board challenged in W.P.(C) No. 4167 of 2003. Granting of any relief as sought for by the petitioner therein would perpetuate the violation of the relevant enactments by the industry and this Court can never be a. party to such a blatant violation of the environmental protection laws. On that ground, we are inclined to decline any relief to the industry, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 4167 of 2003.

9. There was a complaint on behalf of the polluting industry that it has been picked and chosen for discriminatory treatment as the State Pollution Control Board has not taken any action against other industries in and around that area and in the District and this was not proper. As we have indicated earlier, the State Pollution Control Board cannot be accused of being active in enforcement of the environmental protection laws. Taking note of this complaint of the. industry, we direct the State Pollution Control Board to initiate action against all industries in the area and in the various districts, under the relevant enactments and prevent such industries which cause pollution and which are not complying with the requirements of the relevant enactments and which are not taking steps to control pollution in terms of the relevant enactments or as directed by the State Pollution Control Board, from continuing their operation.

10. In the result, we allow W.P.(PIL) 4572 of 2003 and restrain respondent No. 9, Ashok Chemicals, from continuing to work its soap unit without complying with the requirements of the Water Act, the Air Act and the Environmental Protection Act, and unless and until the requisite consents are obtained under the Water Act, and the Air Act and the accepted pollution control devices are adopted. The Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad and all officials under them are directed to give all the necessary help to the State Pollution Control Board to ensure that its orders are obeyed by respondent No. 9 and other polluting industries and that respondent No. 9 does not run the industry without the requisite consents under the relevant enactments. The State Pollution Control Board is also directed to initiate action against other polluting industries in the area in question and in all districts in the State immediately and the Deputy Commissioners and the Superintendents of Police of all the districts are directed to give the necessary assistance and protection to the State Pollution Control Board and its official to enforce its orders, directions and the environmental protection laws.

11. We dismiss W.P. (C) No. 4167 of 2003.