ORDER

1. This is a writ petition presented by a Limited Company which carries on certain manufacturing activity of silk fabrics under the name and style of M/s. Stella Silks and has the manufacturing unit located at No. 411, Telugarahalli Road, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. It is the claim of the petitioner that it is 100% Export Oriented Unit ('EOU' for short) engaged in manufacturing of silk fabrics by using raw silk imported from China and it has very sophisticated machinery imported for the manufacturing process of high technology and it reduces the manual labour to a considerable extent.

2. In the course of its manufacturing activity, the petitioner's unit also has a dyeing unit, which is used for the purpose of dyeing the silk fabrics. In the activity of dyeing, water is extensively used and quite naturally, in the process, water gets contaminated and the petitioner has to get rid of this contaminated water. It appears, that the petitioner sought the consent of the second respondent-Board by making suitable application under Section 25(1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Act' for short). It appears, that conditional consent order had been issued in favour of the petitioner, which in turn enables the petitioner to seek for an industrial licence to set up the silk manufacturing unit issued by the Central Government under the scheme known as "Establishing of Industrial Units for the purpose of exporting their entire production" under the provisions of Imports and Exports Act with special incentives given for the same. It is the further case of the petitioner that such conditional consent order had come to be renewed by the second respondent-Board which had enabled them to continue to operate the industry in question.

3. However, it appears, the petitioner having not complied with various conditions that had been imposed on it by the Board in the matter of discharging pollutants from its factory premises, particularly, discharge of contaminated water, had been put on notice by the Pollution Control Board to take remedial steps immediately and in the alternative, the Board will be constrained to pass appropriate orders in this regard. In this context, a show-cause notice dated 2-1-1999 (Annexure-F to the writ petition) had come to be issued for issuing certain directions under Section 33-A of the Act proposing to direct the Management of the petitioner-industry to close down the industrial operation or process forthwith until further orders and with further directions to the Chairman/Secretary of the Karnataka Electricity Board to stop the power supply to the industry forthwith and until further orders and for cancellation of the licence that had been granted by the Government of Karnataka and for such other allied actions.

4. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice as per reply dated 18-1-1999. However, what is significant from this reply is the fact that the petitioner was taking all steps to ensure compliance with the conditions imposed by the Board, particularly for ensuring that discharged effluents conform to the technical specifica-tions and quality stipulated by the Board and also that the petitioner was prepared to obtain consent for running the industry after making payment of necessary fees by the end of February, to the Pollution Control Board. On his own admission, as revealed from this reply, it is obvious that the petitioner, at that point of time, was running the industry without valid consent from the State Pollution Control Board.

5. The Board had fixed the date of hearing to consider the objections of the petitioner which the petitioner did not avail of on the ground that its Managing Director was out of town on the said date. Though a copy of this communication requesting for further adjournment is produced, the same being dated 15th March, 1999, the very date on which the hearing had been fixed, it is not known as to what action the Board has taken before taking any decision. Ultimately, the second respondent-Board passed an order dated 19-5-1999 conforming the propositions as contained in the show-cause notice dated 2-1-1999 issued by the Board and the petitioner-industry was directed to close its operations forthwith until further orders. It is, aggrieved by this order of the second respondent-Board, that the petitioner has approached this Court questioning the legality of the order and seeking for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the same.

6. The petitioner has contended in the writ petition that the order has come to be passed without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing and therefore opposed to the principles of natural justice and further, that the order, as passed by the Member Secretary, is not in accordance with law as the Board was required to pass an order under Section 33-A of the Act; that the petitioner has not violated any of the norms stipulated by the Pollution Control Board and very diligently and punctually maintaining the "requisite standards in the matter of discharge of water from its unit and is not causing any pollution at all either to the environment or to the earth or water sources in the vicinity and particularly had contended that when they are not allowing the effluents to flow out of their premises, there is no question of their causing any environmental hazards or causing pollution and their industry being 100% EOU, the order impugned in the writ petition requires to be quashed and proper directions issued to the second respondent-Board to permit them to function.

7. It appears, the second respondent-Pollution Control Board had, subsequent to the passing of the order impugned in the writ petition, had entered caveat before this Court by filing a caveat petition.

8. This Court, by an order dated 31-5-1999, being of the view that having regard to the controversy between the parties, it was necessary to direct for inspection of the unit particularly for collection of the sample of the effluent discharge by the petitioner-industry and for subjecting the same to a proper examination and for such purpose, an Advocate practising before this Court was appointed as a Commissioner to inspect the industry of the petitioner, inquire into these aspects and make a report to this Court. This Court also granted an interim order of stay of the impugned order Annexure-K on 4-6-1999. The interim order came to be continued by an order dated 3-6-1999 on which date, the Commissioner submitted his report. The matter was heard further on 8-6-1999 and on a perusal of the order passed by this Court on 8-6-1999, it becomes obvious that the learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted to the Court that the petitioner would be applying for renewal of the consent and also that the petitioner-industry was taking all steps to ensure maintenance of the Effluent Treatment Plant in a manner befitting the standards stipulated by the Board and in view of the submission and undertaking given by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the Court continued the interim order for another four weeks. The matter was heard yet again on 31-7-1999 and on that day it was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board that the petitioner-industry has continued to discharge the effluents which do not maintain the standards fixed by the Pollution Control Board and it has neither complied with the order of the Court nor the undertaking given before this Court and that the water which was discharged from the petitioner-industry was contaminated and much beyond the prescribed standards stipulated by the Board and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. The Court, while passing the order on 31-7-1999 has recorded filing of an affidavit by the petitioner on that day wherein the petitioner had sworn to the following effect;

"As such I hereby undertake that if another 2 or 3 weeks time is granted by this Hon'ble Court we would take all possible steps and care to bring the effluent treatment plant in conformity with the norms and standards laid down by the State Pollution Control Board".

In this view of the matter, the Court was pleased to extend the interim order till 18-8-1999 and directed the matter to be posted for further orders as on that date.

10. The order sheet of the Court indicates that the matter had come up for further orders on 20-8-1999 but the Court was not inclined to pass any further orders but only said "No further orders at this stage". In this view of the matter, the interim order which was extended till 18-8-1999 by this Court, came to an end. However, what remains is only an undertaking given by the petitioner that they will rectify all defects pointed out by the Board in the matter of complying with the conditions imposed by the Board and in the matter of norms stipulated by the Board with regard to discharge of effluents and even the existing defects would be set right within a period of two or three weeks from that date.

11. Unfortunately, though several hearings have taken place as indicated by various orders of this Court passed on 25-10-2000, 3-11-2000, 15-11-2000, 16-11-2000, 21-11-2000, 24-11-2000, 4-12-2000 and 11-12-2000, the matter did not reach its finality and on the other hand, had lingered on. The matter came up for further hearing as on 17-1-2001 and was again heard in full detail.

12. The learned Advocate appearing for the Board was specifically asked as to why the Board did not comply with the earlier directions of the Court to place on record and before this Court as to the response of the second respondent-Board the specific request of the petitioner to grant them time till 31-3-2001 for completing its work in respect of the Effluent Treatment Plant and to ensure full compliance with the requirements of law and conditions and stipulations imposed and indicated by the Board. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent 2-Board sought for some more accommodation to place the same before the Court and at this stage the Court passed an order on 17-1-2001 directing the second respondent to place all the relevant material including its response to the request before the Court by means of an affidavit and to file the same on or before 19-1-2001 and the learned Counsel for the petitioner was also informed that he is also at liberty to place such further material as he thinks fit and that the matter would be taken for further hearing and heard finally on that day.

13. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent 2-Board has today filed reply statement in the Court supported by an affidavit sworn to by one S.B. Ganjigatti, Member Secretary of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. A copy of the same has been said to have been furnished to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This reply statement is received on record. It is asserted in this reply statement that the petitioner-industry has till date not complied with the various conditions and directions issued by the Board and has continued to discharge the polluted water which has been a great source of pollution to the surrounding places, to environment and also to the underground source of water. The petitioner-industry having been granted maximum possible accommodation and in fact the petitioner itself having violated the undertakings before this Court, which it has flouted, the question of the Board extending any further time in this regard does not arise. It is also pointed out that the Board has already passed an order dated 16-10-2000 withdrawing the consent for the running of the industry by the petitioner and all these aspects of the matter had been taken into account while passing the said order.

14. It is stated in the reply statement that the petitioner has been, even as of now, discharging about 40 to 50 cu. metres of trade effluents from outside its factory premises and without any proper treatment. It is the earnest submission of the Board in this statement that the petitioner in this case should not be permitted to operate any further unless it completes the upgradation process of its effluents treatment plant and unless the discharge of effluents from out of the petitioner-industry conforms to the norms and standards stipulated by law and the Board. It is also the submission of the Board that from the past experience the pattern that has been adopted by the petitioner-industry is only to keep on giving assurance and seeking for extension of time without complying with its undertakings and it is only yet another such request in a series of such requests made by the petitioner ever since the inception of the industry. The Board has, along with the statement, placed on record the Results of the Analysis of the discharged effluents from the petitioner-industry dated 20-10-1999 (Annexure-R6), an Analysis Report dated 3-7-1999 (Annexure-R7), Inspection Report dated 3-10-2000 (Annexure-R8) carried out by one Sri K.N. Shivalinge Gowda, Deputy Environmental Officer, Bangalore (South) and a latest such report dated 17-1-2001 carried out by its Assistant Environmental Officer, Bangalore South (An-nexure-R9).

15. It appears, in the meanwhile, the second respondent-Board also passed another order on 16-10-2000 under Section 25(4)(B) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ('the Act' for short) refusing consent to the industry in respect of its application under Section 25 of the Act. A copy of this order has been placed on record by the learned Counsel for second respondent-Board and also the learned Counsel for the petitioner by filing an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code which is dated 17-11-2000. The petitioner has sought for in this application to include in its prayers, issuance of a writ of certio-rari for quashing the order dated 16-10-2000 also and for further direction to the second respondent-Board to consider its requests for extension of time for complying with the various requirements of law and for giving effect to the conditions/directions issued by him.

16. One another incidental development which has to be noticed at this stage is that the second respondent-Board had, by a communication dated 21-8-2000 (copy of which is produced as Annexure-L to the petition by the petitioner), had kept in abeyance the earlier order impugned in the writ petition namely the order dated 19-5-1999 upto the end of October 2000 to enable the petitioner to complete all the works of the Effluent Treatment Plant and on the failure of the petitioner to comply with the same, would automatically revive the closure order dated 19-5-1999.

17. It is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Pollution Control Board that even as on today the petitioner-industry has not complied with the various conditions imposed on it and has continued to pollute the surrounding area by discharge of contaminated effluents. However, this position is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the very application suggests this and it is only because that they are not able to comply with the requirements of law and stipulated by this Court, that they are requesting for time to comply with the various requirements of law. However, what is more significant is that the petitioner-industry has gone on filing undertakings both before the Board and before this Court without any seriousness or any intention to comply with the same, but only as a device to buy time or to continue its activity though its activity has been causing continuous pollution ever since the inception of the industry. The petitioner-industry started its violations from the very day one. The consent order earlier was that the petitioner-industry should not discharge contaminated effluents outside its factory premises and it should discharge ' only in the factory premises. Though the writ petitioner had claimed in the writ petition that it is discharging contaminated effluents within its factory premises and not sending outside the factory premises, the records in the case prove otherwise. The report of the Commissioner, the inspection reports of the various officers of the Pollution Control Board and even the petitioner's own admissions on record, indicate that the petitioner has been discharging the polluted water from outside the factory premises and the report of the Commissioner appointed by this Court clearly indicates that the polluted water outside the factory of the petitioner was found to be used by the farmers though it was found smelling contaminated and would cause various problems. It is obvious that the neighbouring villagers are not aware of the dangers of using such polluted water as a source of water and are exposing in turn all others who may use the produce from such fields.

18. Learned Counsel Sri V. Lakshminarayana appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's unit is a 100% EOU employing more than about 400 persons in the industry and they had from the very beginning tried to set up effluents treatment plant and they are taking steps in the matter of ensuring quality of the effluents discharged from the factory and therefore it cannot be said that they have violated all the conditions imposed by the Board. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that they are also taking steps even now for total conformity with the requirements of law and stipulations of the Board and for such purposes, have also entrusted the maintenance of the effluents treatment plant in favour of a private independent technical agency and as such they deserve sympathy at the hands of this Court and at any rate, in view of their assurance that they will comply with all the requirements and have invested huge amounts both in the factory and in the effluents treatment plant, a sympathetic and pragmatic view of the matter should be taken and the impugned order directing closure of industry should be set aside and they should be enabled to function so that the industry does not come to a close and the workers are not thrown out of employment and their commitments to the foreign buyers is honoured etc.

19. The learned Counsel also submitted that as against the order withdrawing consent passed under the provisions of Section 25(4)(b) of the Act, the petitioner has a right of appeal under Section 28 of the Act and that his client would be pursuing this remedy and he is seeking relief against the closure directions issued by the Board.

20. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether this Court should in any way intervene with the order passed by the Board under Section 33-A directing the closure of the petitioner-industry. The order of closure itself has come to be passed in the wake of various violations committed by the petitioner-industry both with the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and also the conditions imposed by the Board for grant of consent under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Even after the petitioner had approached this Court and even after getting the benefit of the interim orders, the petitioner had continued to flout with impugnity the various conditions. The petitioner had also not complied with the various undertakings given before this Court and in fact though had sought for extension of time to comply has violated his own affidavits and undertakings, and has never complied with the same. The very object of the Act is to ensure that the water which is a very essential natural resource available to the society is maintained in its purity, that some powerful, influential and greedy persons do not corner the same for themselves and do not cause pollution to the detriment of the society at large. The interests of a particular person or a particular industry is not the concern with which the Act has been enacted by the legislature. It is for protecting the interest of society and for ensuring the ecological preservation of nature such enactments are made. When persons like the petitioner flout the various provisions of the Act and conditions imposed thereunder only for their own private benefit, such acts cannot be entertained and indulgence shown by this Court to save such persons at the cost of the society at large. More so, in the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner has been far from bona fide and being one of continuing to flout the orders passed by this Court and violating its own undertakings filed before the Court and continue to run the industry even without any enabling power or order in their favour inasmuch as on and after 18-8-1999 there was no interim orders which enabled the petitioner to continue the industry, Nevertheless, the petitioner has continued to run the industry, continued to pollute the environment by discharging contaminated water. Subsequently, the Board has also withdrawn the consent as per the order dated 16-10-2000. With the passing of this order, the petitioner could not have continued his activity for running the industry. However, it is the total inaction and complicity of the second respondent-Board that has enabled the petitioner not only to continue to flout the orders, but also continue to cause pollution. The Pollution Control Board which is expected to protect the interests of the society in the matter of causing of pollution, has exhibited total lack of sensitivity, inaction and the conduct of the Board amounts to one of total incompetency if not irresponsibility. The respondent-Board should act as an authority to prevent pollution and not promote pollution. It is high time that the Board started functioning in the manner as is expected of it under the various provisions of the Pollution Control enactments. I am constrained to make these remarks having regard to the lukewarm manner in which the Board has responded to the Court orders and in assisting this Court.

21. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is without merit. The petitioner does not deserve any indulgence at the hands of this Court and accordingly the petition is rejected imposing cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to second respondent-Board. Though the conduct of the officers of the second respondent-Board definitely does not entitle them for award of any costs, costs are imposed more as a measure of deterrent on the persons like the petitioner who not only abuse the process of Court with false and frivolous causes, but also flout with impugnity the undertakings given before the Court. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board being a public body, cost is awarded in its favour. The second respondent-Board is at liberty to take action as is open to them in law for enforcing various provisions of law in preventing causing of pollution.

22. As noticed earlier, in view of the petitioner seeking to avail of the remedy under Section 28 of the Act as against the order dated 16-10-2000 passed by the Board in exercise of the power under Section 25(4)(b) of the Act, it is unnecessary for me to go into the merits of the order dated 16-10-2000. Therefore, it is also not necessary for this Court to entertain the I.A. seeking for the additional relief by way of amendment to include the prayer for quashing the order dated 16-10-2000 passed by the second respondent in exercise of its power under Section 25(4)(b) of the Act. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail of the remedy under Section 28 of the Act. I.A. is accordingly rejected.