JUDGMENT K. C. Agarwal, J. - This petition was filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by M/s Navin Chemicals Manufacturing and Trading Company Ltd, and its shareholder, J.C. Bhatia, initially against two respondents who were New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and M/s. Detchem Mineral Corporation, Sector VI, Noida Complex, district Ghaziabad. The petition was ultimately transferred by the Supreme Court to be decided by this Court. This is how this petition has come before us for hearing. The petitioners claimed for following two, amongst other reliefs : (i) for directing respondent 1 to take appropriate steps for stopping the grinding and pulverising of stones by respondent No. 2, M/s. Detchem Mineral Corporation. (ii) for directing respondent 2 to. refrain from conducting any activity resulting in pollution of atmosphere. 2. The broad facts on which the petition was filed were that petitioner 1, Navin Chemicals which was a company in the business of the manufacture of sophisticated sensitive life saving multi purpose drugs, applied to respondent No. 1 for allotment of plots for establishing an industrial unit in Noida in the year 1978. Plots A 12 and A 12A, Sector III, Noida were allotted to petitioner No. 1 on 18th Jan. 1978 of which possession was taken on 1st June, 1978. The application, the petitioners have alleged for manufacturing of drugs, was submitted on the 15th Dec. 1979 and the licence for that purpose was granted on 12th Sept. 1980. The allegations of the petitioners are that petitioner No. 1 for the purpose of manufacturing drugs required the area free of pollution. Nevertheless in Oct. 1979 the adjoining plot, namely, plot No. A 14, Sector 3, was allotted by respondent 1, Noida to respondent 2, i.e. M/s. Detchem Mineral Corporation, for setting up of unit for grinding and pulverising stones. The building plants of respondent 2. as stated in the writ petition were approved in 1981. 3. The complaint of the petitioners is that the grinding of stones into powder causes pollution in the atmosphere which was having adverse effect on the products of petitioner 1 (sic) due to the adverse effect on the quality of products of respondent 1 adversely suffered and despite all precautions, the petitioners' products were rejected by the purchasers on account of foreign elements having been found in the same. The petitioners have alleged that since despite repeated requests, respondent 1, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, did not take any action against respondent 2, M/s Detchem Mineral Corporation, it became necessary for the petitioners to approach this Court for the reliefs mentioned above. The petitioners claimed that it had invested over Rupees 80 lacs and as a result of the continued pollution of the atmosphere by respondent 2 and the indifferent attitude of respondent 1 in resolving the problem, the petitioner had suffered very substantial loss as the drugs could not be prepared according to international requirements. 4. The Supreme Court on 21-8-1984 issued notice of the writ petition and, thereafter, on 28th Sept. 1984 passed an order directing the U.P. Air Pollution Control Board to depute an officer to visit the area in Sector III, Ghaziabad district in which factory of respondent 2 was situated for the purpose of inspecting the area for air pollution under S. 17(1)(f) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Air Act) and assess the quality of air therein and also to find whether the degree of pollution, if any was such that it affected the manufacturing activity undertaken by petitioner 1, i.e. Navin Chemicals, in their factory located adjacent thereto. 5. In pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court, the Industries were surveyed on 7-11-1984. 13-11-1984 and 14-11-1984 by the Regional Officer of the U.P. Pollution Control Board. The report was forwarded to the Supreme Court by the Acting Member Secretary of the Pollution Control Board, Lucknow along with his letter dated 24-11-1984. The relevant portion of this report, which was relied upon by the petitioners, is quoted below :- "Pollution Stutus (Status): The first sample as above showed a suspended particulate matters concentration of 1092. 15/ug/M3 (microgram per cubic meter) which was considerably more than a level of 500/ug/M3 specified by the Central Board. The Second sample showed a suspended particulate matters of 1845. 27/ug/M3. This was also more than the level specified by the Central Board as above." At this place, we may quote another portion of this report : "It was, therefore, observed that even when the process within M/s Detchem Mineral Corporation remain suspended the quantity of suspended particulate matters within premises of M/s Navin Chemical is considerably more than 500/ug/M3. 27/ug/M3. This was also more than the level specified by the Central Board as above." At this place, we may quote another portion of this report : "It was, therefore, observed that even when the process within M/s Detchem Mineral Corporation remain suspended the quantity of suspended particulate matters within premises of M/s Navin Chemical is considerably more than 500/ug/M3. While operations within M/s Detchem Mineral Corporation enhance the concentration of suspended particulate matters, yet the contribution of other factors like nearby industries and transport which have already resulted in a high S.P.M. (1092.15/ug/M3) cannot be ignored. It is also important to note that a boiler is installed within the premises of M/s Naveen Chemicals which, on running would naturally lead to an increase in suspended particulate matters within the air." 6. On 7-1-1985, the Supreme Court directed the petitioners to implead U.P. Air Pollution Control Board as respondent in the writ petition. 7. On 27th Sept. 1984, respondent 1 filed a counter-affidavit challenging the correctness of some of the facts which were stated by the petitioners in the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. As it is not necessary for deciding the writ petition to refer to all the controversies raised through this affidavit and respondent 2, we would confine ourselves to only material ones. It may be noted that respondent 1 has alleged that in pursuance of the letter dated 6-4-1984 issued by respondent 1 to furnish information in regard to product to be manufactured, the petitioner 1 gave the information by intimating that they were to set up "Test House/Analytical Laboratory. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit, the stand taken by respondent 1 is that the allotment was made in favour of petitioner 1 on 10-4 1980 for "Emetine Hydrochloride" whereas earlier to this, allotment had been made in favour of M/s Detchem Mineral Corporation, respondent 2 on 19-1-1978 for manufacture of "Lavigated China Clay". 8. Respondent 1 has claimed that it had no power under the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976) for taking any action against respondent 2 even if it was found that the said respondent 2 was causing air pollution. 9. 8. Respondent 1 has claimed that it had no power under the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976) for taking any action against respondent 2 even if it was found that the said respondent 2 was causing air pollution. 9. The petitioners filed a rejoinder in reply to the counter affidavit of respondent 1 and alleged that on the record as on 19-1-1978 the application of M/s Detchem Corporation was for the manufacture of Carboxy Methyl Cellulose and not for Lavigated China Clay. The change of product was approved on 12th Oct. 1978. Therefore, it was incorrect to say that respondent 2 had been permitted to manufacture Lavigated China Clay from the very beginning. It was claimed by petitioner 1 in the rejoinder affidavit that respondent 1 was wrong in asserting that there was no necessity for the Authority to scrutinise the proposed project. prior to the grant of permission. The Authority constituted under S. 3 was entrusted with the power by S. 10 of U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976 to require proper maintenance of site or building. Under this section, respondent 1 was required to determine whether the use of any site or building prejudicially affects wholly or partly the occupier thereof. It was alleged by the petitioners that as it was the duty of respondent 1 to see that the activities of respondent 2 did not prejudice the analytical laboratory or the manufacture of drugs by petitioner 1, it having failed to do so could be directed under the law to take appropriate action against respondent 2. 10. On 23rd Apr. 1985, respondent 2 swore an affidavit in reply to the affidavit of petitioner 2. By this affidavit, respondent 2 challenged also the correctness of the report by the Pollution Control Board in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court dated 21st Sept. 1984. It was alleged in the counter-affidavit of respondent 2 that petitioner 1 itself was causing pollution and, as such, it could get no relief against respondent 2. Under U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976, respondent 2 alleged that there was neither any duty of the authority to check the pollution at the time when the application of respondent 2 was allowed nor could any action be taken against it under S. 10 of the said Act by respondent 1. Under U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976, respondent 2 alleged that there was neither any duty of the authority to check the pollution at the time when the application of respondent 2 was allowed nor could any action be taken against it under S. 10 of the said Act by respondent 1. It was claimed that the report of the U.P. Pollution Board dated 24-11-1984 was incorrect inasmuch as respondent 2 was not responsible for the same. In pars 8 of the counter-affidavit, respondent 2 has given the names of six other Industries installed in the neighbourhood of the places where the respondent 2 is situated which were also pulverisers and were doing the grinding job of minerals. Air Pollution, therefore, according to respondent 2, could not be considered on account of the grinding and pulverising of stones by respondent 2. It was alleged by respondent 2 that there were all kinds of other Industries manufacturing chemicals around such Industries and there had been no complaint from-anybody about pollution. Respondent 2 claimed that the Industry in which the petitioner was engaged was an Industry near to that of the Cement Industry. 11. It was alleged in pars 26 of the counter- affidavit that the answering respondent also are grinding minerals into powder form like cement and the therefore, these are more or less similar industries. As per the standards laid down for Cement Industry the permitted SPM contents are of the order of 400/ug/m3 of air which is equal to 4 lakhs ug/m3 in respect of the capacity of the plant being less than 200 tons per day. In the cement Industry lower the size of the plant, higher is the emission rate as permitted. The answering respondents' plant is of the capacity of 3 Mt/per day. 12. Respondent 2 claimed that since the Pollution Board itself stated in the report that there was already high SPM in the atmosphere even when both the factories were closed, no action against respondent 2 could be taken. In para 28 of the counter affidavit, it has been alleged that the emission content from the petitioners' factory contained dangerous and poisonous elements. and, as such, respondent 2 could not be held responsible for the same. 13. In para 28 of the counter affidavit, it has been alleged that the emission content from the petitioners' factory contained dangerous and poisonous elements. and, as such, respondent 2 could not be held responsible for the same. 13. The U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976) was enacted to provide for the constitution of an Authority for the development of certain areas in, the State into Industries and Urban township, and for matters connected therewith. Section 3 empowered the State Government to constitute on notification for the purpose of this Act, an "Authority" to be called (name of the Area) Industrial Development Authority for any industrial development area. The State of U.P. had created respondent 1 by a notification issued under S. 3 of the aforesaid Act. 14. The expression "amenities" has been defined in S. 2(a) of the Act. This has laid down the various types of amenities which are covered by this definition:- It did not include right to receive free,. air within this definition. It is a type of complaint, which relates to eliminate pollution, for control of which there are, no provisions in..U,P.. Act No. 6 of 1976. 15. Section 10 was relied upon by the petitioners for the submission that it was the responsibility of respondent I to determine whether the use of any site or building prejudicially affected wholly or partly the occupier thereof. The petitioners' counsel contended that as the amenity of receiving air free of pollution was required to be preserved and, enforced in case there was any infringement on the Authority constituted under S. 3 of the Act, respondent 1 was under the duty to call upon respondent 2 to take appropriate steps for stoppage of pollution and to prosecute respondent 2 if it had failed to do so. We do not agree with this submission. Section 10 had been enacted for a purpose different than for which the petitioners wanted to take advantage of. Under this section, an Authority can direct or compel an allottee to use the site or building in a proper manner so that the same does not prejudicially affect the planning or the amenity of the industrial area. Section 10 had been enacted for a purpose different than for which the petitioners wanted to take advantage of. Under this section, an Authority can direct or compel an allottee to use the site or building in a proper manner so that the same does not prejudicially affect the planning or the amenity of the industrial area. The word "amenity" has been defined in S. 2(a) and the same would (not?) include' the right to receive air free of pollution and, as such, the Authority could not be directed by means of Mandamus to prosecute respondent 2 since the air had been polluted by respondent 2 on account of grinding and pulverising of stones. Section 10 could not, therefore, require respondent 1 to determine whether the use of site or building affected wholly or partly petitioner 1. It is necessary to keep in mind the object and purpose of a provision while interpreting or finding its scope. If the object of S. 10 is to be kept into account. the purpose for which S. 10 is intended to be applied by the petitioners could not be covered by it. Learned counsel could not show us any other provision under which respondent 1 had the power to take action against respondent 2 assuming that all those facts, which have been stated in the writ petition, were correct. Respondent 1 had the duty under the Act to demarcate the areas for different purposes and if a site situated in a particular plot is allotted to a person, he could not be permitted to change its use by starting an activity which is prohibited for that area. In the instant case, the complaint of the petitioners is not that the area was allotted to respondent 2 for the purpose other than for which it was being used. The area in which the factory of respondent 2 is situated was earmarked for industrial purpose and respondent 2 has set up an industry in that area. Conseuently, the said respondent 2 could not be held guilty of having changed the purpose and, as such, no action could be taken against it under S. 10 or any other provision of the Act. If it was pollution (of?) the air by emitting air pollution against the standards, that would not be a case covered by U.P. Act No. 6. of 1976. If it was pollution (of?) the air by emitting air pollution against the standards, that would not be a case covered by U.P. Act No. 6. of 1976. Respondent 1 was a body created by U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976. It has only those powers which are conferred by it. 16. In Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) at P. 257, Lord Roche held c,. "Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. All the methods of performance are necessarily forbidden." 17. The authority could not travel beyond the Act and assume the powers not specifically conferred. In fact, U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976 did not have any thing to do with pollution. It was by Air Act passed by the Parliament that this subject was dealt with. 18. The Air Act contains provisions restricting industries from contaminating environment. Under this Act, the State Governments are empowered to declare any area within the State as "air pollution control area" When such a declaration is made, no person can, without the consent of the State Board, operate any industrial plant. Such consent is given subject to the following conditions :- (i) The control equipment of much specifications as the State Board may approve in .this behalf shall be installed and operated in , the premise where the industry is carried on, or proposed to be carried on; (ii) The existing control equipment if any, shall be altered or replaced in accordance with the directions of the State Board (iii) The control equipments described above shall be kept at all times to good running condition: (iv) Chimney, wherever necessary shall be erected or re-erected in such premise. 19. Emission of air pollutants in excess of the standard laid down by the state Bord is penalised. 20. finding out of air pollutants is a highly technical process for which the provisions were made in Air Pollution Control Act. There being nothing in U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976 relating to this matter, we could not issue any Mandamus of respondent 1. The relief claimed as against respondent 1 on the ground set forth in the writ petition is misconceived. Mandamus can be issued to compel the authority to do its clear legal duties 21. There being nothing in U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976 relating to this matter, we could not issue any Mandamus of respondent 1. The relief claimed as against respondent 1 on the ground set forth in the writ petition is misconceived. Mandamus can be issued to compel the authority to do its clear legal duties 21. The Second part of the case is about the breach of the provisions of Air Act. 22. In pursuance of the decision taken at the United the Nations conference on the Human Environment held in June, 1972, in which India participated to take appropriate steps for the preservation of natural resources of the earth which among other things included the preservation of the quality of air and control of air pollution that the parliament passed the air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 23. Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, amongst others, are : (1) With the increasing industrialisation and the tendency of the majority of industries to congregate in areas which are laready heavily industrialised, the problem of air pollution has begun to be felt in the country. The problem is more acute in those heavily industrialised areas which are also densely populated. Short term studies conducted by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur, have confirmed that the cities of Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi, etc., are facing the impact of air pollution on a steadily increasing level. (2) The presence in air, beyond certain limits, of various pollutants discharged through industrial emissions and from certain human activities connected with traffic, heating, use of domestic fuel, refuse incinerations etc., has a detrimental effect on the health of the people as also on animal life, vegetation and property. (3) In the United Nations conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in June 1972, in which India participated, decisions were taken to take appropriate steps for the preservation of the natural resources of the earth which, among other things, include the preservation of the quality of air and control of air pollution. The Government has decided to implement these decisions of the said conference insofar as they relate to the preservation of the quality of air and control of air pollution. 24. Section 2 gives definitions of words and phrases used in the Act. Clause (a) defines "air pollutant" whereas Cl. The Government has decided to implement these decisions of the said conference insofar as they relate to the preservation of the quality of air and control of air pollution. 24. Section 2 gives definitions of words and phrases used in the Act. Clause (a) defines "air pollutant" whereas Cl. (b) deals with air pollutant" Under section 19, the State Government is, after consolation with the State Board, by notification in the Official Gazette, entitled to declare any area or area for the within the State as air pollution control area or areas for the purpose of this Act. The State Boards provided for in this Act are constituted under Section 4 of the said Act section 17 deals with functions of the State Boards. Clause (g) of Section 17(1) as follows :- "(g) to pay down in consolation with the Central Board and having regard to the standards for the quality of air laid down by the Central Board, standards for emission of Air pollutants into the atmosphere from industrial plants and automobiles or for the discharge of any air pollutant into the atmosphere from any other source whatsoever not being a ship or an aircraft : Provided that different standards for emission may be laid down under this clause for different industrial plants having regard to the quantity and composition of emission of air pollutants into the atmosphere from such industrial plants." Under S. 21, no person, without the previous consent of the State Board, is entitled to operate any industrial plant for the purpose of any industry specified in the Schedule in an-air pollution control area. Sub-section (2) of S. 21 provides for making an application for consent of the State Board. 25. Proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 21 applies to a case of any person who immediately before the declaration of,any area as an air pollution control area has been operating in such area any industrial plant. Such a person, if he is operating industrial plant, is required for the purpose of any industry specified in the Schedule to make application under sub- sec. (2) for consent within such period (being not less than three months from the date of such declaration) as may be prescribed. 26. No person, carrying on the industry specified in the Schedule in any air pollution control area,. (2) for consent within such period (being not less than three months from the date of such declaration) as may be prescribed. 26. No person, carrying on the industry specified in the Schedule in any air pollution control area,. can discharge the emission of any air pollution in excess of the standards laid down by the Board under Cl. (g) of sub- sec. (1) of S. 17. Any person, who does not apply for consent under S. 21, is liable to be punished under S. 38 of the Act. Similarly, a person who infringes S. 22 is also liable to be prosecuted. Section 38 provides for the penalty. 27. After analysis of various provisions of the Act, Sri Chhatrapati Singh in his article on Legal Policy for the Control of Environmental Pollution contained in Chapter 1 of Law and Environment at page 7 has observed : "Our environmental laws operate on a deterrent theory of criminal justice administration. However, the retributive value of the penalties fails to deter because there is a total disparity between retribution and the economic benefits of non-compliance." 28. In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 54 of the Air Act 1981, the Governor, after consultation with the U.P. Pollution Control Board set up by the U.P. Government made Rules which came into force with effect from the date of its publication in the Gazette which was Sept. 24, 1983. For the purpose of the present case, the Rule relevant is 26. Sub-rule (1) of R. 26 is as under : "(1) The area bounded by the respective boundaries of the industries specified in Schedule appended to the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981) are hereby declared as Air Pollution Control areas under sub-sec. (1) of S. 19 of the Act." 29. The Legislature appended the Schedule to the Act and mentioned therein the names of various industries. At item No. 13, the industry. mentioned is : 13. Ore mineral processing industries including beneficiation, polletization, etc. 30. The petitioner had alleged in the writ petition that respondent 2 having committed the breach of air standards laid down by the Pollution Board is not only liable to be prosecuted and punished but also this Court should by means of Mandamus restrain the said respondent from operating the industry. Ore mineral processing industries including beneficiation, polletization, etc. 30. The petitioner had alleged in the writ petition that respondent 2 having committed the breach of air standards laid down by the Pollution Board is not only liable to be prosecuted and punished but also this Court should by means of Mandamus restrain the said respondent from operating the industry. In support of this relief, reliance had been placed on the report of the Expert who had been appointed by the Supreme Court when the writ petition was pending before it. The Expert had found that the suspended particulate matters were 1845.27/ug/M3. Since this was more than the prescribed limits laid down by the Central Government, under S. 17(1)(g), the respondent 2 was liable to be punished. In reply to this averment, respondent No. 2 did not only challenge the correctness of the experts' report but also alleged that under law respondent 2 could not be proceeded with. It was claimed by respondent 2 that the allegation of the petitioner that the manufacture of minerals by grinding and pulverising involved air pollution was absolutely erroneous and incorrect. Respondent 2 had specifically provided "Cyclone Separattor" and "Dust Collector" from the inception of factory as a part of their machinery and they were carrying on their manufacturing operations in a closed shed. Respondent 2 claimed that the petitioner itself was responsible for pollution and as a result of the same, it was not entitled to any relief. Manufacturing of drugs was never permitted on the plot in question, that was the case of respondent 2. It was asserted by respondent 2 that no atmospheric adulteration would have been possible in case the drugs were prepared in a closed chamber. 31. As already said above, respondent 2 had claimed that there was no reliable or admissible evidence or even allegation on record to show that the pollution was or is caused in excess of the permissible limits. The emission of pollution and its measurement are subject to technical test and in the absence of technical tests under the Pollution Act, the petitioners could not allege that any pollution was caused by respondent 2 or in any case beyond permissible limits. 32. In reply to the aforesaid counter affidavit of respondent No. 2 which was filed in this Court on 12-11-1985, the petitioner has filed two affidavits. 32. In reply to the aforesaid counter affidavit of respondent No. 2 which was filed in this Court on 12-11-1985, the petitioner has filed two affidavits. The petitioner has denied the allegations made by respondent 2 accusing the petitioner also responsible for pollution and further aserting that respondent 2 had not carried out any safety measures which were essential for the pollution not taking place in the atmosphere. 33. The U.P. Pollution Board had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court and had alleged in para 14 that neither the petitioner nor the respondents are complying the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and both are thus answerable for the said violations. The U.P. Pollution Board further alleged in pars 18 that it is also pertinent to mention here that neither the petitioner nor the respondents are complying the mandatory provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The contents not related to the answering respondents need no reply. 34. In this Court, two counter affidavits have been filed by the U.P. Pollution Board. In the first counter affidavit, the copy of which was served on the petitioner on 2-9 1985, the Pollution Board alleged that the increase of S.P.M. in the atmosphere due to operation of the factory of respondent 2 comes out to be 753.12/ug/M 3. It was further reported that the stack monitoring from the factory of the petitioner could not be determined because the industry was closed. The allegation contrary to above are incorrect, so denied. 35. It was also averred in para. 12 that the petitioner as well as respondent 2 were violating the mandatory provision of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, for which necessary action was under consideration. 36. When the writ petition was being argued, it was not clear whether the U.P. Pollution Board had adopted the ambient air quality standards laid down by the Central Board. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the Pollution Board filed an affidavit on 14-2-1986 stating that the U.P. Pollution Control Board adopted the Ambient Air quality standards of the Central Pollution Control Board in its meeting held on 26th Mar., 1984. Along with the affidavit, the air standards have also been annexed. 37. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the Pollution Board filed an affidavit on 14-2-1986 stating that the U.P. Pollution Control Board adopted the Ambient Air quality standards of the Central Pollution Control Board in its meeting held on 26th Mar., 1984. Along with the affidavit, the air standards have also been annexed. 37. The argument which was advanced by the petitioners' counsel as well as by the Pollution Board was that respondent 2 had committed the offence by not filing the application for consent within three months as it was required by the notification dated 20th Oct., 1983 and further by not adhering to the ambient air standards under S. 17(1)(g). Learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board contended that it is respondent No. 2 against which action to be taken was under consideration and that a criminal case would be launched against the said respondent No. 2 in case the Board was satisfied about the desirability of the same. 38. Sri Sudhir Chandra, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the U.P. Pollution Board was guilty of having not launched the prosecution of respondent No. 2 uptill now and a Mandaums should be issued to the said Board for this purpose. 39. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and having given thought over the matter, we are of opinion that as the U.P. Pollution Board is actively considering about the action, we need not issue any direction in that regard. In the circumstances, it appears to us that only a direction to the U.P. Pollution Board to take a decision whichever way it may like within three months, would meet the ends of justice. U.P. Pollution Board would be entitled to consider the question whether any prosecution should. be launched against respondent 2 is a matter left to the discretion of the Pollution Board. 40. With the help of the affidavits filed in the Supreme Court and in this Court, the counsel appearing for the U.P. Pollution Board had submitted that the petitioner was also guilty of breach of the provisions of the Air Act. That action is contemplated as against the petitioner also. That is the matter within the power of the U.P. Pollution Board and we are not required to say anything as well. 41. That action is contemplated as against the petitioner also. That is the matter within the power of the U.P. Pollution Board and we are not required to say anything as well. 41. Counsel for the petitioner had urged that the petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Mandamus against respondent 2 to restrain it from polluting the air standards and, as such, Mandamus be issued to it desisting from doing so. 42. Article 51A (g) of the Constitution reads as under : "It shall be the duty of every citizen of India : "(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures." 43. The Pollution Control Board lays down a wholesome scheme as against a person who is guilty of the breach of the provisions of law. Section 43 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by, or with the previous sanction in writing of, the state Board. It is settled law that when an Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in a specified manner, that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner. 44. The Parliament has enacted the Air Act, 1981 to provide for the prevention, control and abatement of air pollution and no. benefit can be claimed contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid Air Act by any person under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 45. In Joshi v. Ajit Mills, AIR 1977 SC 2279 , it was said : "Courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative beliefs." 46. In Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher, (1949) 2 All ER 155 (164) Lord Denning said : "A Judge must not alter material of which the act is worn, but he can and should iron out the creases." 47. Subject to what we have said above, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.