JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This is an appeal under Order LXIII, Rule L(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of the Ilnd Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun,dated 30th January, 1989, restraining the U.P. Pollution Control Board, the appellant, from giving effect to the order dated 12th December, 1988 passed by the District Excise Officer, Dehradun. 2. An application under Section 33(1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was filed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board against the respondent, M/s. Doon Valley Distillery, Kunwala, Dehradun restraining it from discharging its polluted trade effluent into the river polluted Dulhini. The U.P. pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') asserted that the Distillery could not discharge its polluted trade effluent into the stream without obtaining consent of the Board under Sections 25/26 of the Act. The assertion made was that M/s. Doon Valley Distillery did not have any treatment plan so as to confront to the standard laid down by it. The distillery was inspected on 7-2-1986 by the officers of the Board during which it was found that the effluent of the distillery was being discharged into the said stream. The Board claimed the relief provided for by sub-section (3) of Section 33. 3. The application was contested by the Doon Valley Distillery on various grounds. The Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application by passing the following order:- "The application under Section 33(1) of the Act dated 6-3-84 is allowed and M/s. Doon Valley Distillery through its proprietor accused Sir Copal Havelin, the occupier accused Sri P.C. Agrawal are hereby restrained with immediate effect from discharging their polluted trade effluents into river Dulhini through drain either directly or indirectly until and unless the trade effluents being discharged by them come within the permissible limits of the standards laid down by the applicant-Board." 4. Since the Doon Valley Distillery did not comply with the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the U.P. Pollution Control Board through its law officer wrote to the District Magistrate, Dehradun for taking action against the respondent for giving effect to the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Since the Doon Valley Distillery did not comply with the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the U.P. Pollution Control Board through its law officer wrote to the District Magistrate, Dehradun for taking action against the respondent for giving effect to the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The respondent, M/s. Doon Valley Distillery received a letter dated 8th November, 1988 from the Board along with the copy of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide this letter, the Board asked the appellant to submit its compliance regarding order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 21 1-1986. A copy of this letter was sent to the District Magistrate, Dehradun as well. The District Excise Officer sent a letter to M/s. Doon Valley Distillery intimating to it that on 11-12-1988, the District Magistrate ordered for permanent closure of the distillery in pursuance of the resolution of the Board and that the respondent, Doon Valley-Distillery had been granted time till 31st March, 1989 to install the trade effluent plan. 5. The plaintiff, M/s. Doon Valley Distillery, instead of complying with the direction of the U.P. Board, filed suit No. 804 of 1988 in the Court of the Civil Judge along with an application for injunction. Through the injunction application the prayer made was that the order of the District Magistrate communicated to the plaintiff by the District Excise Officer by his letter dated 11-12-1988 be not given effect to and that a direction be issued to the District Magistrate not to close the distillery. 6. The application was contested by the Board on the ground that as the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated 21-1-86 had not been given effect to, the respondent was not entitled to get injunction inasmuch as there was no other way to give effect to the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The defendant Board has also claimed that the suit was barred by Section 58 of the Act. The material portion of Section 58 laid down "No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by this Act." 7. The material portion of Section 58 laid down "No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by this Act." 7. The learned Civil Judge held that the District Magistrate did not have the power to direct for the closure of the distillery under the Act have the operation of the order of the District Magistrate dated 11-12-1988 was required to be stayed. 8. In this appeal, counsel for the appellant urged that the Civil Court could not sit in judgment over the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and since the application filed under that provision was allowed restraining pollution of water in the stream Dulhini by the Doon Valley Distillery, the Civil Court could not reopen the controversy by going into the same afresh. 9. Justifying the impugned judgment of the court below Sri Ravi Kiran Jain contended that there was no provision in the Act authorising the District Magistrate to close the distillery even if the distillery was discharging trade effluent into the press. He urged that after the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the distillery had altered its system of discharging water. 10. We have heard counsels for the parties. From the supplementary affidavit filed in the appeal it appears that in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court, a Commissioner visited the premises of the respondent distillery and found that the effluent discharged from the respondent distillery was highly polluted. 11. In 1974, the Parliament enacted Act No. 6 of 1974, the Preamble be of which reads as under:- "An Act to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water, for the establishment, with a view to carrying out the purpose aforesaid, or Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution, for conferring on and assigning to such Boards powers and functions relating thereto and for matters connected therewith." 12. The necessity of taking immediate steps to check pollution of water has been emphasised by the Supreme Court and other courts in numerous cases. The necessity of taking immediate steps to check pollution of water has been emphasised by the Supreme Court and other courts in numerous cases. Section 24 of the Act provides that no person shall cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter into any stream or well. Section 25 places restrictions on new outlets and new discharges. Under this section, no person shall without the previous consent of the Board, bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage or trade effluent into a "stream or well or sewer or on land " The prohibition placed by Section 25 is absolute. In the instant case, what was argued on behalf of the Doon Distillery before us was that after the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the method of passing of water had been changed by the distillery and that it is not guilty of having committed breach of the said order. 13. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed under Section 33 has become final. It has got to be given effect to. Under the order, the distillery had been restrained from discharging trade effluent into the river Dulhini. The Doon Valley should have not only complied with that order but reported it to the Board by seeking its permission under Section 25 of the Act. In the instant case, no material could be brought to our knowledge under which the Doon Distillery has been authorised to alter the Outlet for discharge of trade effluent. The mere assertion that the same had been done would be of no avail to the distillery inasmuch as whether the order was fully complied with or not is a matter to be looked into by the Pollution Control Board. No court has either the capacity or the power to go into this question. Therefore, if the order passed under Section 6 has been implemented the party complying with it has to go to the Board and to bring the same to its notice. 14. Counsel for the respondent argued that the District Magistrate did not have the power to close the distillery and the order made to that effect was invalid being against the provisions of the Act. At this place, we wish to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 S.C. 1115 . Counsel for the respondent argued that the District Magistrate did not have the power to close the distillery and the order made to that effect was invalid being against the provisions of the Act. At this place, we wish to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 S.C. 1115 . The Supreme Court observed as under: - "We are, however, of the view that since the problem of pollution of water in the river Ganga has become very acute, the High Court should not ordinarily grant order of stay of criminal proceedings in such cases and even if such an order of stay is made in extraordinary course, the High Court should dispose of the case within a week " 15. These observations have been extracted by us only for emphasising that in a matter of discharging of effluent, the Court should emphasise upon the person to approach the Pollution Control Board and obtain permission of the Board for the treatment of the trade effluent flowing out of its factory or distillery. 16. It is correct that power to grant injunction is discretion. Discretion, when applied to a Court of law means sound discretion guided by law. Closure of the distillery, even if assumed was illegal, that was only one side of the picture. The more important was compliance of the restraint order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Apart from ipse dixit. The respondent distillery produced no evidence about its compliance. Moreover, we also entertain considerable doubt about the maintainability of the suit. 17. For what we have said above, we allow the appeal of the U.P. Pollution Control Board, set aside the judgment and order of the learned Ilnd Additional Civil Judge and reject the injunction application. For enabling the M/s. Doon Valley Distillery to approach the Pollution Control Board we hereby direct that the injunction order shall remain operative for a period of one month in between the parties. After one month the same would come to an end.