JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The petitioner who claims herself to be from the family of Freedom Fighters has filed this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation claiming the following reliefs: “(i) That the permission granted to the respondent No.5 by respondents No.2 and 4 for setting up the industry by the name of M/s. Ajay Tyre Retreaders may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) That the respondent No.1 may be directed to initiate proceedings against respondent No. 5 under the H.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1968; (iii) That the construction being raised by the respondent No.5 may be directed to be demolished; (iv) That the respondent No.5 may be directed not to use the water from the rivulet as well as from the natural water spring in the vicinity of industry; (v) That the respondent No.3 may be directed to instruct the Gram Panchayats throughout the State to prepare model plans for the Villages to have control on erection of buildings; (vi) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The allegations made in the writ petition are that respondent No.5 has started establishing an industry by the name of Ajay. Tyre Retreaders at Village Balu-Karaila, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, which is adjacent to the State Highway connecting Ghagas-Kangra without leaving any scheduled width and controlled area as stipulated under the H.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called "the Act”). It is further alleged that rubber industry which is being set up by respondent No. 5 is pollutant in nature and is heavily dependent upon water, as such, there is every likelihood of pollution of the rivulet and other sources of water existing nearby, from which water is drawn for drinking and irrigation purposes by the inhabitants of contiguous villages. Besides this, air pollution and noise pollution is also apprehended which would adversely affect the health of the villagers living in and around the site of the proposed industry. The petitioner has placed on record certificates dated 12.7.1997 issued by Up-Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Bakroa (Annexure P-A); dated 9.9.1997 issued by the President, Gram Panchayat Phatoh, Tehsil Ghumarwin (Annexure P-C); dated 9.9.1997 issued by the President Gram Panchayat, Amarpur Block, Jhandutta, Distt. Bilaspur (Annexure P-D); dated 12.2.1998 issued by Member Zila Parishad; Ward No. 9 Chandpur, Distt. The petitioner has placed on record certificates dated 12.7.1997 issued by Up-Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Bakroa (Annexure P-A); dated 9.9.1997 issued by the President, Gram Panchayat Phatoh, Tehsil Ghumarwin (Annexure P-C); dated 9.9.1997 issued by the President Gram Panchayat, Amarpur Block, Jhandutta, Distt. Bilaspur (Annexure P-D); dated 12.2.1998 issued by Member Zila Parishad; Ward No. 9 Chandpur, Distt. Bilaspur (Annexure P-G) and dated 12.2.1998 issued by the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti Jhandutta (Annexure P-H) verifying all these apprehensions of the villagers. Copies of joint representations of the residents of village Balu Kariala submitted to the Chief Minister on 9.9.1997 and the Chairman H.P. State Pollution Control Board on 28.1.1998 are also placed on record as (Annexure P-B and P-F). However, no reply thereto was received. The Assistant Engineer H.P. PWD Sub-Division Ghumarwin also gave notice to respondent No. 5 to stop illegal construction without the permission of the Government. 3. In the reply affidavit dated 31.3.1998 filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 by the Director of Industries, it is admitted that rain fed Nallah exists adjacent to the factory site which remains dry during the summer season and natural source of water exists-about 20 metres from the factory site which is used only for washing etc., whereas respondent No. 5 has proposed to draw water for her industry from the water supply line of the Department of Irrigation and Public Health which is near to the proposed factory site. It is further admitted that respondent No. 5 has obtained provisional registration on 18.6.1997 from the General Manager District Industries Center, Bilaspur to establish a Tyre Retreading Unit. According to the Director of Industries, the apprehension of the villagers is unfounded as the proposed industry does not fall in the category of polluting industries requiring site clearance. However, it is required to obtain No objection certificate from the H.P. State Pollution Control Board and also to take necessary pollution control measures to its satisfaction before going into production. It is further stated that on receipt of the representation, the matter was got inquired into by the General Manager, District Industries Center, Bilaspur, according to whose report the proposed industry will be established on one side of the State Highway at a distance of half a kilometre from the residential houses of villages located across the road. It is further stated that on receipt of the representation, the matter was got inquired into by the General Manager, District Industries Center, Bilaspur, according to whose report the proposed industry will be established on one side of the State Highway at a distance of half a kilometre from the residential houses of villages located across the road. Since the proposed unit is unlikely to adversely affect the residents of nearby village, No objection certificate has been issued by the H.P. State Pollution Control Board but the respondent No. 5 is liable to install the requisite pollution control devices and to take other measures for the abatement and control of pollution to the satisfaction of the said Board before commencing production. 4. In the reply of the H.P. State Pollution Control Board filed on the affidavit dated 31.3.1998 of its Member Secretary, Mr. Ashok Sharma, it is stated that the Asstt. Executive Engineer of Bilaspur has issued conditional consent letter to respondent No. 5 keeping in view all the environmental rules and safeguards of water air and soil. The site of the proposed industry is not in the midst of population and the nearest houses are at a distance of about 300 metres. The water of the rivulets and the spring cannot be effected as there will be no discharge of any kind on land or into any water body from the Unit. There is also no provision in the project profile submitted by the entrepreneur for burning of any fuel in Bhatti or Boiler as curing and heating process will be by electric machines, as such, there is no apprehension of water pollution or air pollution as alleged by the petitioner. However, only conditional consent to establish the industry has been issued by the Board and before the final consent to operate the unit is issued, further inspection will be conducted by the Board Engineers to verify that fool-proof measures are adopted for the control/abatement of all possible pollution and even after the Unit starts functioning, the Board will supervise and take necessary action against the erring Unit. It is categorically denied that the proposed Unit will have any adverse effect on ecology. The solid waste (rubber Crumbs) which will come out of the process is very costly item and it shall be sold at very handsome value. It is categorically denied that the proposed Unit will have any adverse effect on ecology. The solid waste (rubber Crumbs) which will come out of the process is very costly item and it shall be sold at very handsome value. Since the Unit is dependent upon electricity and water will be used for domestic purposes only, it will not alter quality or quantity of water in the nearby rivulet or natural water source as apprehended by the petitioner. In the end, it is denied that the statutory authorities have not taken the matter seriously and reiterated that the proposed unit will not cause any air, water and noise pollution and in no way the flora and fauna of the area would be effected. 5. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 on the affidavit dated 20.6.1998 of the Superintending Engineer, 10th Circle, HP PWD, Bilaspur, it is stated that demarcation of the disputed site, where the house is under construction, was got done by the Revenue Authorities in which the construction of the house was not found in the acquired land of the P.W.D. but it was found in the controlled area/width that is 2.30 metres and 1.40 metres from the edges of the road for which proceedings for violating the Act were initiated by the Asstt. Engineer Ghumarwin and notice dated 21.1.1998 was issued to respondent No.5 to stop the unauthorized construction. A copy of the notice and site plan is placed on the record as Annexures R-l and R-2. 6. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5, the allegations made in the petition are denied. It is asserted that this writ petition has been filed to settle personal scores under the garb of public interest litigation and it involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. It is specifically denied that respondent No. 5 is setting up the Unit without leaving any scheduled area/width and the establishment of the Unit will cause any water, air and noise pollution which fact finds support from the certificates dated 21.6.1997 issued by the President, Gram Panchayat Bakroa, Tehsil Ghumarwin (Annexure R-5/1) and dated 4.4.1998 issued by the President Gram Panchayat, Amarpur Block Jhandutta (Annexure R-5/3). The No Objection Certificate issued by the H.P. State Pollution Control Board is also placed on record as Annexure R-5/2. The No Objection Certificate issued by the H.P. State Pollution Control Board is also placed on record as Annexure R-5/2. In order to clarify that the proposed Unit is not likely to cause any kind of pollution, certificates from HIMCON and the Managing Director of the Company which is supplying the equipment for installation of the proposed Unit (Annexures R-5/ 4 and R-5/5) are also annexed. It is also stated that the notice dated 21.1.1998 (Annexure R-l) was issued on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner without ascertaining the correct facts existing on the spot. Later on, in the demarcation carried out in the presence of the officials of the H.P. Public Works Deptt. it was found that the entire construction was within the land owned by respondent No. 5. The copies of the application of respondent No. 5, the demarcation report dated 31.1.1998 and the copy of letter dated 3.6.1998 of the Asstt. Engineer HP PWD (B&R) Sub-Division, Ghumarwin, addressed to the Executive Engineer sending the demarcation report are placed on record as Annexures R-5/6 and R-5/7. 7. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder to the affidavit of respondent No. 5 reiterating her allegations made in the petition and denying the contrary stated therein. 8. When the matter was partly heard by this Court on 30.7.1998, an order was passed directing respondents No. 4 and 5 to file additional affidavits explaining whether the conditions laid in the letter dated 27.6.1997 (Annexure R-5/2) have been complied with by respondent No. 5 or not. In pursuance of this order, supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No, 4 stating that its Asstt. Environmental Engineer had visited the proposed Unit site on 12.9.1998 and 19.9.1998 besides earlier inspections and has made report (Annexure R-4/A) stating that the conditional letter of consent granted on 27.6.1997 for one year was further renewed on 10.8.1998 by letter Annexure R-4/C and the consent to operate the Unit will be granted by the Board only after all the conditions stated therein are fulfilled. It is also stated that the Unit has not installed machinery as yet and has not become operational and conditions No. 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21 will be revaluated and considered again at the time of issuing consent to operate. It is also stated that the Unit has not installed machinery as yet and has not become operational and conditions No. 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21 will be revaluated and considered again at the time of issuing consent to operate. So far other conditions of consent letter are concerned, these are not applicable to the proposed Unit as no effluent and gaseous emission are apprehended as the entire heating process is by electric machines and no Bhatti or Boiler will be used, for which respondent No. 5 has given undertakings Annexure R-4/D and R-4/E. The rubber crumbs are available as process material and it is sold for the purpose of recycling. It is also reiterated that there will be no adverse effect on the surrounding environment as apprehended by the petitioner. 9. In the supplementary affidavit dated 10.10.1998 filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, it is stated that already 33 plants of different species have been planted in the land where the proposed unit is to be established. It is further stated that the conditions as imposed by the State Pollution Control Board in their consent letter have also been duly complied with and the consent to establish has been further extended up to 27.6.1999 by the State Pollution Control Board by its letter dated 10.8.1998 (Annexure R-5/8). 10. The writ petition was further heard on 24.12.1998 and the following order was passed: "Heard the writ petition itself on merits for quite sometime, having regard to the serious nature of the issues involved particularly in the context of the fact that the industrial unit in question has not been permitted to commence its operation and production. The replies filed by the Pollution Control Board as also the 5th respondent-industrial Unit except taking a blunt stand that no pollution is involved and no discharge of effluents would result in the manufacturing process to be adopted, have not chosen to describe the details of the manufacturing process generally involved in production of Retreading of tires and the type and nature of process, which the 5th respondent industrial unit propose to adopt for its production. It the absence of such technical details, it is difficult for this Court to effectively adjudicate the conflicting stand taken on either side about the alleged pollution and the denial of such an allegation. It the absence of such technical details, it is difficult for this Court to effectively adjudicate the conflicting stand taken on either side about the alleged pollution and the denial of such an allegation. Therefore, we are of the view that pending further hearing and consideration of issues raised in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to respondents No. 4 and 5 to ensure that before getting any clearance from this court by an order, the 5th respondent shall not commence its production activities. The respondents are directed to file appropriate affidavits disclosing the manufacturing process generally involved in the Retreading of tires and the one which is to be particularly adopted by the 5th respondent in this case. The other authorities of the State Government also shall specifically disclose in the form of an affidavit as to the steps taken in respect of the alleged violation of the H.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1968 and the stage of proceedings pending and the action taken in respect thereof. The matter shall stand adjourned for further hearing to 19.3.1999.” 11. In pursuance to the abover order, respondent No. 4 filed additional affidavit of its Member Secretary stating that in Retreading of tyres two processes, namely, Hot Retreading Process and Cold Retreading Process, are involved and respondent No. 5 has undertaken to follow Cold Retreading Process with electricity in which there is no use of Boiler or Bhatti or even water. As such, there will be no discharge of effluents or emission of gases from the proposed. Unit causing any apprehension of air and water pollution. As per this affidavit, the Cold Retreading Process is as under: “(ii) COLD RETREADING PROCESS: WITH STEAM : In this process, buffing and cementing processes are same as above, but in building instead of raw rubber, vulcanised rubber (Precured rubber) is used. Here vulcanizing chamber or bonder is used and steam is also generated through a boiler. The boiler requires wood or kerosene oil or light diesel oil as fuel. Hence CO, CO2, and O are generated as pollutants. WITH ELECTRICITY. here the process is similar i.e. worn out tyres are collected as raw material then— BUFFING : The loose material from tyre surface is removed with the help of buffing machine, the surface is kept ready for cementing. Hence CO, CO2, and O are generated as pollutants. WITH ELECTRICITY. here the process is similar i.e. worn out tyres are collected as raw material then— BUFFING : The loose material from tyre surface is removed with the help of buffing machine, the surface is kept ready for cementing. From buffing the rubber crumb is produced as waste material, which is collected properly with the help of dust collector and stacked in separate room and sold in open market. CEMENTING. A fast curing cushion gum is applied on the top of the buffed tyre surface. This process is manual. BUILDING. Here vulcanized rubber is applied on the cemented surface of the tyre. This procured rubber is pressed on the surface of tyre by tyre builder. This machine is also electrically operated. VULCANIZING. For vulcanizing large size chamber is used where three or four tyres up to six can be put at one time. These tyres having vulcanized rubber on surface already provided by building process are heated through electricity so that vulcanized rubber can fix itself permanently on tyre. In the chamber there are heating coils, which heat up with electricity and make required temperature at above 125*C. Inside chamber hot air circulation is ensured by electrically operated blowers fixed inside the chamber. From here the retreaded tyres come out." The flow sheets of Cold Retreading Process are enclosed as Annexure R-4/F and Annexure R-4/G to the supplementary affidavit. 12. The supplementary affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1 is filed by Sh. R.K. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, 10th Circle HP PWD, Bilaspur, stating that respondent No.5 has constructed a building in the controlled width of Brahmpukhar Ghagus Ghumarwin, Haritalyanagar, Bhota Ranital Kotla Road which was declared Scheduled road and thus has violated the Act. As such, a complaint has been filed in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, which is at the stage of service of respondent No. 5 and the next date of hearing has been fixed on 12.4.1999. 13. Further, in the application (CMP No. 164 of 1999) for vacation of stay order filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, which is supported by the affidavit of Sh. 13. Further, in the application (CMP No. 164 of 1999) for vacation of stay order filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, which is supported by the affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Kumar Nadda, holding General Power of Attorney of the proprietor of respondent No. 5, it is stated that the proposed unit is absolutely eco-friendly and free from any polluting agent which may cause any air or water pollution of any kind whatsoever. The whole machinery has been purchased from the company known as Speedways Rubber Company (Speedways Tyres Limited) Bye-pass G.T. Road Jalandhar, Punjab, which is of highly advanced technology for Cold Retreading of tyres. It is further stated that the process of Cold Retreading is absolutely different from the traditional retreading of tyres which involves heating and burning of rubber which may emit foul fumes and gases. The benefits of cold retreading process are clearly depicted in the pamphlets issued by different companies, including the Speedways Rubber Coy. which has supplied machinery to respondent No. 5. As per the pamphlets, Annexures R-5/9 to R-5/11 in the process of cold retreading, firstly, the tyre is buffed and thereafter a solution of gum is sprayed on it and procured tread rubber is fastened on it and the tyre is heated in closed electric chamber. This process is totally eco-friendly and does not cause any air and water pollution as certified by the Director of Speedways Tyres Ltd. (Annexures R-5/12) and stated in the literature Annexure R-5/13. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited some judgments of the Supreme Court passed in the cases pertaining to environment. 15. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and others, (1996) 5 SCC 281, it is observed in Para 41: “......With the governmental authorities not showing any concern with the enforcement of the said Acts and with the development taking place for personal gains at the expense of environment and with disregard of the mandatory provisions of law, some public spirited person have been initiating public interest litigation. The legal position relating to the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts for preventing environmental degradation and thereby, seeking to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, is now well settled by various decisions of this Court. The legal position relating to the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts for preventing environmental degradation and thereby, seeking to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, is now well settled by various decisions of this Court. The primary effort of the court while dealing with environmental related issues, is to see that the enforcement agencies, whether it be the state or any other authority, take effective steps for the enforcement of laws. The courts in a way, act as a guardian of the peoples fundamental rights but in regard to many technical matters, the courts may not be fully equipped. Perforce, it has to rely on outside agencies for reports and recommendations whereupon orders have been passed from time to time. Even though it is not the function of the court to see the day-to-day enforcement of law, that being the function of the Executive, but because of non-functioning of the enforcement agencies, the courts as of necessity have had to pass orders directing the enforcement agencies to implement the law." In para 42 it is held: "....For effective orders to be passed, so as to ensure that there can be protection of environment along with development, it becomes necessary for the Courts dealing with such issues to know about the local conditions. Such conditions in different parts of the country are supposed to be better known to the High Courts. The High Courts would be in a better position to ascertain facts and to ensure and examine the implementation of anti-pollution laws where the allegations relate to the spreading of pollution or non-compliance of other legal provisions leading to the infringement of the anti-pollution laws. For a more effective control and monitoring of such laws, the High Courts have to shoulder greater responsibilities in tackling such issues which arise or pertain to the geographical areas within their respective states. Even in cases which have ramifications all over India, where general directions are issued by this Court, more effective implementation of the same can, in a number of cases, be effected, if the High Courts concerned assume the responsibility of seeing to the enforcement of the laws and examine the complaints, mostly made by the local inhabitants, about the infringement of the laws and spreading of pollution or degradation of ecology.” 16. In M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Matter) v. Union of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 715, it has been observed in Para 10 that: "The "Precautionary Principle" has been accepted as a part of the law of the land. Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. It is the duty of every Citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The "Precautionary Principle” makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environment degradation. We have no hesitation in holding that in order to protect the two lakes from environmental degradation, it is necessary to limit the construction activity in the close vicinity of the lakes.” "Precautionary Principle” and "The Polluter Pays" principles have been held to be essential features of Sustainable Development in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647, and the meaning of Precautionary Principle in the context of Municipal law was given as under: "(i) Environmental measures by the State Government and the statutory authorities-must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. (ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (iii) The onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign." 18. In Bhavani River Sakthi Sugar Ltd.-Re, (1998) 6 SCC 335, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have observed that the matter involving public interest requiring an in depth examination by the High Court should not be disposed of merely on the consent of the State Pollution Control Board and that such matter should be disposed of after obtaining expert opinion. 19. 19. In the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof M.V. Nayudu (Retd) and others, JT 1999 (1) SC 162, the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays principle which were held as part of environmental law of the country in Vellore Citizens Forum case (supra) have been further explained so that the Courts, Tribunals and Environmental authorities can apply the said principles in the matters which come before them. 20. Coming to the writ petition in hand, from the pleadings as referred to hereinabove, it is clear that the industrial Unit of respondent No. 5 has not started production. It has obtained provisional registration from the General Manager, District Industries Center, Bilaspur, to establish a tyre retreading Unit near village Ballu Kariala, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The H.P. State Pollution Control Board had given No Objection for setting up the Unit subject to the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 27.6.1997 (Annexure R-5/2), valid for a period of one year which has further been extended for one year, that is, up to 27.6.1999 on the same terms and conditions (Annexure R-4/C). It is made clear by the H.P. State Pollution Control Board that the final consent to operate the Unit will be granted by it only after all the conditions imposed in the letter (Annexure R-5/2) are fulfilled. It is further explained by the Pollution Control Board that conditions No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 will be revaluated and considered at the time of issuing final consent to operate and so far other conditions No. 6 to 12 and 17 are concerned, these are not applicable to the Unit of respondent No. 5 as no discharge of effluents is apprehended. Conditions No. 2, 5, 13 and 15 are most important. These are: "2. The industry shall provide adequate arrangements for fighting the accidental leakages/discharge of any pollutant/gas/liquids from the vessel, mechanical equipment, etc. which are likely to cause pollution. 5. The industry shall plant minimum of three suitable varieties of trees at the density of not less than 100 tree per acre along the boundary of industrial premises. 13. The industry shall instal Air Pollution Control devices so as to contain all the suspended particulate matter and gaseous emissions. 15. The industry shall keep the height of exhaust pipe with ventilation equipment, etc. 13. The industry shall instal Air Pollution Control devices so as to contain all the suspended particulate matter and gaseous emissions. 15. The industry shall keep the height of exhaust pipe with ventilation equipment, etc. at least 3 metres above the roof leavel.....". 20. In Conditions No. 18 to 20, it is made clear that consent to operate will be issued by the Pollution Control Board after its satisfaction that anti-pollution devices are installed by the Unit for prevention, control and abatements of water/air pollution. In order to verify the stands of H.P. State Pollution Control Board and respondent No. 5 that there will be no discharge of effluents and emission of gases causing water and air pollution by the establishment of the proposed Unit, we directed them by our order dated 24.12.1998 to disclose the manufacturing process generally involved in the retreading of tyres and the one which is to be particularly adopted by respondent No. 5, by filing affidavits. From the affidavits filed by the H.P. State Pollution Control Board as well as respondent No. 5 it transpires that the proposed Unit has undertaken to follow Cold Retreading Process with electricity, without using Bhatti or Boiler as well as water at any processing stage. It is also clear from the report of the Asstt. Environmental Engineer of the H.P. State Pollution Control Board (Annexure R-4/E) and the literature of the Company Speedways Tyres Ltd. placed on record by respondent No.5 from whom it has purchased the machinery which will be used by it for tyre retreading. A certificate from the Director of Speedways Tyres Ltd. (Annexure R-5/12) has also been placed on record that electric chamber procuring rubber plant supplied to respondent No.5 is totally electrically heated plant and does not require water in any processing stage, as such, the plaint is totally free from creation of any type of air and water pollution. On the basis of the material on record, we are satisfied that if Cold Retreading Process is adopted by respondent No.5 in its Unit, there is no apprehension of any water and air pollution but heavy responsibility is on the State Pollution Control Board to ensure that respondent No.5 commences production after fulfilling all the conditions applicable to it as laid down in the consent letter and continues strictly observing all the laws pertaining to environment. 21. 21. So far the complaint of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 has made construction in violation of the Act is concerned, as per the affidavit dated 11.3.1999 of the Superintending Engineer 10th Circle HP PWD, Bilaspur, proceedings are already pending before the Collector Ghumarwin which will be decided iii accordance with law. Hence, we need not make any observation in this regard except that it deserves expeditious disposal. 22. In the result, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: (1) The respondent No.5 may apply to the H.P. State Pollution Control Board to obtain consent to operate after fulfilling all the conditions applicable to it as laid down in the letter of consent to establish its unit. (2) On receipt of the application of respondent No.5 for consent to operate, complete in all respects, the H.P. State Pollution Control Board will make recommendations after inspection and issue Inspection report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. (3) Thereafter, respondent No.5 may apply to this Court for getting the Stay order dated 24.12.1998 vacated for commencing production. (4) The Collector Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur is directed to decide the complaint of Superintending Engineer, 10th Circle, HP PWD, Bilaspur, against respondent No.5 for violation of Roadside Land Control Act, 1968 expeditiously. 23. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court at any time if in practice any king of pollution is caused by respondent No.5 Industry. The parties are left to bear their own costs.