N. C. Jain, C. J. (Acting)- This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge imposing a fine of Rs.20,000 upon the appellant for misrepresentation of facts in obtaining the order for status quo on 21.11.1995. The order passed by the learned Single Judge (V. Dutta Gyani, J), (which is held to be as a result of misrepresentation), is reproduced below: “Mr. R. Gogoi with Dr. AK Saraf for the petitioner, Mr. AH Saikia, learned Central Govt Standing Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board, Mr. H. Roy, learned counsel for the Caveator and Ms. A. Hazarika, learned Govt advocate, they are heard. During the course of hearing Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the Board was asked if the Board would suggests some concrete measures, such as, installation of devices or instruments so as to achieve the desired satisfactory level prevention control of the emission of heavy smoke the factory is emanating from its process, he sought time till Monday, the 27th November, 1995, which is granted. In the meanwhile, Mr. H. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Caveator pointed out that the petitioners are acting against their own commitment. Mr. Gogoi, however, referring to Annexure V (letter dated 17th Oct 95 issued by the Board) pointed out that the petitioners have been allowed to operate their two renovated block. In these circumstances, instead of suspending the operation of the order dated 17th Oct. 95 (Annexure V to the petition), status quo in the matter of operation of the units as it obtains today is directed to be maintained until Monday, the 27th November, 1995. Mr. Gogoi referring to Annexure V submitted that the status quo as ordered may not be misconstrued. It is, therefore, clarified that the status quo as ordered may not be misconstrued. It is, therefore, clarified that the status quo as directed above, shall not apply to the two renovated blocks allowed to be operated vide Annexure V, letter dated 17th Oct 95, issued by the Board. Their operation, as allowed, shall continue.” 2. At the very outset we are constrained to observe that a writ Court as such should not impose any fine and in all probability it is beyond the jurisdiction of the writ Court to impose a fine on a party. The writ Court could have imposed costs or exemplary costs but not fine. 3. At the very outset we are constrained to observe that a writ Court as such should not impose any fine and in all probability it is beyond the jurisdiction of the writ Court to impose a fine on a party. The writ Court could have imposed costs or exemplary costs but not fine. 3. In order to determine whether there was any misrepresentation in obtaining the order which has been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment, it .is necessary to examine the facts of the instant case. The writ petitioner was running a coke industry and it was alleged that k is emitting polluted air exceeding the permissible limits. In all, the petitioner industry had 3 blocks. All the blocks h were ordered to be closed down by an order dated 27.9.95 by the Pollution Control Board. On representation by the writ petitioner, 2 blocks were allowed to be operated on 17.10.95. The order reads as under : “Pollution Control Board Assam, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati 21. No. WB/Z-III/T-1269/95-96/99 dated Guwahati, the Ist Nov.95. M/s Mahabir Coke Industries, Borsojai (Beltola), Guwahati-28. Subject: Release of Emission. Dear Sir, With a view to study the effectiveness of installation of single chimneys in 2 blocks it has been proposed to do Air quality monitoring in and around of your unit at Borsojai from 2nd November, 1995. You are requested to keep operation of the unit during the monitoring period. Yours faithfully, Sd/- CC Bora, Member Secretary Memo No. WB/Z-III/T-1269/95-96/99 dated Guwahati, the Ist Nov 95.” 4. According to the petitioner, he started working on the three Blocks in pursuance of the aforementioned order. The case of the respondent Board is that the petitioner was not entitled to operate the third Block in accordance with his said order, as on 17.10.1995 only two Blocks were permitted to the operated and not the third Block. It deserves to be noticed at this stage that the Pollution Control Board vide the order dated 15.11.1995 ordered the closer of all the three Blocks and it is this order which gave rise to the writ application in which the i order was passed by V. Dutta Gyani, J, as he then was. The counsel for the appellants on the basis of the above facts has strenuously argued that on facts no misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioner could be spelt out by the learned Single Judge. The counsel for the appellants on the basis of the above facts has strenuously argued that on facts no misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioner could be spelt out by the learned Single Judge. It has been argued in the alternative that the writ petitioner might have misunderstood the order dated 17.10.1995 but under no circumstance it can be held that the petitioner has by misrepresentation obtained the order of status quo. The counsel for the Pollution Control Board, on the other hand, while countering the arguments of the counsel has argued that the first part of the order dated 17.10.1995 makes it clear that he was to operate only two Blocks for the purpose of monitoring. 5. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that it is not a clear cut case where a finding can be safely recorded that the writ petitioner is guilty of misrepresentation of facts. The last two lines of the order of the Board dated 17.10.1995 does give an impression as if the petitioner was to keep the entire Unit ready for monitoring, whereas the earlier part of this order does indicate that only two Blocks should have been operated. In any case, once there is no averment in the writ petition or in application for interim relief that third Blocks was lying closed down on the date of filing the writ application, the petitioner did claim stay regarding all the three Blocks. The order of the learned Single Judge granting interim relief is also clear in the sense that specific observations regarding third Block were made. Clear cut observation of the learned Single Judge regarding third Block, in our considered view, rule out any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. For the reasons recorded above, the prayer of the appellants is allowed to the extent that the words, 'misrepresentation', 'misled', and 'misleading' are ordered to be deleted from the impugned order. At this stage, the counsel for the appellants has intimated us that the amount of Rs. 20,000 has been deposited but the appellants are not a interested in taking back the amount. The aforesaid amount would be spent by the Board in spreading public awareness regarding pollution and the same need not be refunded to the appellants. However, the same would not be treated as fine.