ORDER Ravi S.Dhavan, J. - Messrs Chandra Enterprises, the petitioner, has filed the present writ petition objecting to the cess which has been imposed upon it by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Against the order of the Board, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Committee constituted under S. 13 of the Act, aforesaid, objecting to the levy of cess on the petitioner industry on the grounds (a) that it has not received any opportunity of hearing before the cess was made; (b) there was no provision to pass an ex parte order under the Act; (c) the petitioner manufactures `mill board' only and, in effect, for it's manufacture this is not an industry named in Schedule I to the Act, and (d) the water which the petitioners consumes does not get polluted as it is biodegradable and the cess which is charged is excessive and illegal. 2. The Cess Appellate Committee sought objections of the petitioners and declined to recall the order by which cess of Rs. 16,726.50 had been imposed on the petitioners' industry for the period October 1982 to June, 1989. The Cess Appellate Committee has rejected each of the contentions of the petitioner and gave reasons for it. The Appellate Committee has not accepted the contention that the proceedings were ex pare as it has placed on record that the petitioners received a notice indicating a date and opportunity to comply with the provisions of the Act which the petitioners failed to do. In addition, the appellate committee has also placed on record that the premises of the petitioner were inspected on 25 February, 1989 but no representative of the petitioners joined in the inspection and proceedings, thus, were not ex parte. Simultaneously, the appellate committee also rejected the contention that, in the circumstances, the cess has not been rightly determined and the submission that the order was ex parte was misconceived as the petitioners had at every given stage, the record reveals were conscious of the fact that they were under notice that their premises would be inspected. Thus, the Board has rightly assessed the cess under the Act. 3. None of the contentions of the petitioner directly deal with the intention and purpose of the law by which cess is imposed. Thus, the Board has rightly assessed the cess under the Act. 3. None of the contentions of the petitioner directly deal with the intention and purpose of the law by which cess is imposed. The contentions are that the petitioner does not manufacture paper but `mill board'. The other contention is that water which it utilises and discharges after processing is biodegradable. 4. The contention of the petitioners that it is not an industry which is mentioned in Schedule I upon an analogy that the subject mentioned in the schedule is `paper industry' and by no stretch of imagination can the product, which the petitioners manufacture be related to paper. A sample of what the petitioner manufactures is filed with the writ petition. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is a difference between `paper' and `mill Board' or hard board or cardboard, whichever be the name of which this product is called. 5. If arguments like this were to be permitted to defeat the intention of the law, then the very purpose for which the law has been made would be defeated. The intention of the legislation known as Water (Prevention and -Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, is in it's preamble. It says : "An Act to provide for the levy and collection of a cess on water consumed by persons carrying on certain industries and by local authorities, with a view to augment the resources of the Central Board and the State Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974". 6. The preamble also makes it clear that the purpose is to augment the resources of the Central Board and the State Board, for the prevention and control of water pollution, constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It is very difficult to ignore the purpose for which Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was enacted. It is very difficult to ignore the purpose for which Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was enacted. The objects and reasons as stated, for this enactment read : "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 purposes aforesaid, of Board 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. Whereas it is expedient 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 purposes aforesaid, of Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution and for conferring on and assigning to such Boards powers and functions relating thereto." 7. The intention of the two enactments is for preventing pollution of water and maintain efforts for restoring water to it's natural state, after industrial use. Water unquestionably is a natural resource the pollution of which is to be prevented. The purpose of the two legislation's is that this element of nature is not abused, and to strike a balance to return to nature, as part of the ecological balance system, what was taken from it, otherwise, a process of depletion may set in. The price of industrialisation, and mass consumption of natural resources is to remove contamination in the present context, which pollute water. 8. The argument of the petitioner is something like this; that plywood is not wood. If such an argument were permitted to escape laws which control and prevent pollution, then it would be paying lip service to controls designed to prevent environmental degradation. 9. The appellate committee has placed on record that the raw material which is used in the manufacture of mill board is not different than the raw material which produces paper. The time, thus, has come that the courts and those who have been invested with the obligation to prevent pollution and implement laws which relate to pollution do so with strictness. It is not disputed that the petitioner does utilise water and its daily needs for water are at the rate of 12150 kilo litres of water per day. This is the information furnished by the petitioners' industry. It is not disputed that the petitioner does utilise water and its daily needs for water are at the rate of 12150 kilo litres of water per day. This is the information furnished by the petitioners' industry. The petitioner draws this water from a tube well having a capacity of 7.5 H.P. with a total head of 80' approximately. 10. To monitor industries like the petitioners and to ensure that they conform to the purpose for which the legislation has been enacted, there are monitoring agencies referred to in the two enactments. 11. It is difficult to say that the petitioner industry is out of the purview of the Act. The petitioner cannot be exempted from paying cess. 12. In these circumstances, from the record which is before the court, the court is not inclined to interfere in this matter, as the petitioners must conform to the controls to prevent the pollution of the water which it uses for its industry. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not for interfering with steps which protect the environment and the ecology. 13. This writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.