ORDER 1. The petitioner; by means of this writ petition, has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite party No. 2 to grant consent to the petitioners since so called effluent lead oxide is recycled and is according to the specified BOD as per the notification dated 6th April, 1983, contained in Annexure No. 2A writ in the nature of prohibition has also been prayed, restraining the opposite party No. 2 to proceed with the complaints filed under Section 33 as well as under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter called Act). A writ of certiorari for quashing the proceeding held by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution Control) in case No. 2037 of 1989 under Section 33 of the Act as well as case No. 2036 of 1989 under Section 44 of the said Act has also been prayed. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that they have minimised the level of pollution in the effluent from the factory by setting up high technology effluent treatment plant by which the the recycling is done within the shortest possible time and the Board was duty bound not to refuse consent to the petitioners, especially when they could lay down conditions regarding the progress to be made by the petitioners in the grant of consent. It was further averred that it was not open to the Board to refuse the consent and launch prosecution as a consequence of this refusal. The grievance of the petitioners is that only effluent which they discharge into the river is lead oxide which is also recycled and the same is in accordance to the specified BOD. 3. As far as the relief, contained in (A) regarding grant of the consent to the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be granted for the reason that it has already refused by the U.P. Pollution Control Board. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder by the ,Government of U.P. known as U.P. Water (Consent for discharge of Sewage and trade Effluents) Rule, 1981 are itself complete Code. The appeal is provided against the order passed by the authorities concerned. The petitioner cannot be permitted to file the writ petition for seeking the said remedy without exhausting the alternative remedy available to him. The appeal is provided against the order passed by the authorities concerned. The petitioner cannot be permitted to file the writ petition for seeking the said remedy without exhausting the alternative remedy available to him. As far as other reliefs regarding the issue of writ of prohibition restraining the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution Control) Lucknow to proceed with complaint cases Nos. 2037 of 1989 and 2036 of 89 under Sections 33 and 44 of the Act are concerned, the writ either in the nature of prohibition or certiorari cannot be issued for the reason that, as to whether the petitioner has been discharging the effluents into the river or not or whether the effluents discharged are toxic or hazardous to public health or not is a question of fact which cannot be determined in the present writ petition and this question can only be decided by the competent authority after proper analysis. The U.P. Pollution Control Board after coming to a definite conclusion that he discharge of effluent was hazardous to public health initiated proceeding against the petitioner by filing two criminal cases under Sections 33 and 44 of the Act. The averments contained in F.I.R. disclose the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner the question as to whether the effluents, i.e., lead oxide is recycled and it is in accordance with the specified BOD is a question which can be determined by the Magistrate concerned, this question cannot be decided in the present writ petition. In case the petitioner has any grievance, he can approach the Magistrate by preferring an application under S. 245 Cr.P.C. which reads as under; (i) "If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless." 4. A perusal of the said section would indicate that the Magistrate has been given ample power to discharge the accused persons at any previous stage of the case, if for the reason to be recorded, he considers the charge to be groundless. A perusal of the said section would indicate that the Magistrate has been given ample power to discharge the accused persons at any previous stage of the case, if for the reason to be recorded, he considers the charge to be groundless. By filing this writ petition the petitioner intends to ignore the hierarchy of the judicial process by having a leap forward which cannot he permitted. He must exhaust the alternate remedies, available to him under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code before approaching this court. The writ petition is devoid of merit and dismissed in limine.