JUDGMENT Mr. V.K. Jhanji, J. - This shall dispose of Civil Revisions No. 2734 and 2735 of 2000. Both the civil revisions are directed against Order of the Courts below whereby application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for grant of temporary mandatory injunction in a pending civil suit, has been allowed and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have been directed to unseal and open the factory premises i.e. the Plant, Machinery and the Generating Set at the Industrial Unit of the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 has been directed to restore electricity supply to the factory premises of the plaintiff. Defendants have, however, been given liberty to proceed against the plaintiff-company after complying with the provisions of law. 2. In brief, the facts are that the plaintiff-company is engaged in the manufacturing of the industrial alcohol and rectified spirit at its factory on the Hissar-Delhi Bye-Pass Road, Hissar. 3. In regard to discharge of effluent, by the distilleries in Haryana, the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of News item Hindustan Times of A.O.F.M. Yamuna Central Pollution Control Board & another, (Writ Petition (Civil). No. 725 of 1994) vide its Order dated August 9, 1999 directed the Central Pollution Control Board (for short the Civil Procedure CodeB hereinafter), Delhi to file an affidavit. Pursuant to the said order, P.M. Ansari, Additional Director, Civil Procedure CodeB filed his affidavit on August 24, 1999. The relevant part of the affidavit relating to the distillery of plaintiff-company was to the following effect :- (1) That I, in the capacity of the Additional Director of the Civil Procedure CodeB, am well conversant with the facts of the case and hence competent to swear this affidavit. (2) That the Honble Court, vide its order dated 9.8.99 has directed that the Central Pollution Control Board should file, by the next date of hearing, a further report with regard to all the distilleries in Haryana, in particular M/s. Frost Falcom Distillers and M/s. Haryana Organics. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 8. That M/s. Associated Distillery, Hissar has ETP consisting of bio-digesters followed by secondary ETP. The analysis of the effluent samples collected from the ETP as well as before application to field indicates that the ETP is not operated regularly. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 8. That M/s. Associated Distillery, Hissar has ETP consisting of bio-digesters followed by secondary ETP. The analysis of the effluent samples collected from the ETP as well as before application to field indicates that the ETP is not operated regularly. The absence of sludge in the Sludge Drying Beds also indicative of the non-operation of the ETP. M/s. Associated Distillery do not have adequate land for irrigation with the effluent of the industry. As such, the land is being polluted by over-application of the effluent. The unit is not complying with the prescribed standards. 4. The Honble Supreme Court, on consideration of affidavit submitted by Mr. Ansari, directed the CPBC and Haryana State Pollution Control Board (for short the HSPCB) that they shall be duty bound to take such action as they may deem proper in regard to discharge of effluent by distilleries in Haryana in accordance with law. The respective Pollution Boards were also directed to inform the Court as to what action they have taken against erring distilleries. 5. In pursuance of the order of Supreme Court, the Civil Procedure CodeB, vide notice dated 31.12.1999, in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 5 of the 1986 Act read with Rule 4 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 issued the following directions to the plaintiff-company :- 1. That you shall adopt any or combination of methods of treatment as mentioned in Annexure I. 2. That you shall install separate energy meter and flow measuring devices at the inlet and outlet of the ETP. You shall provide V-notch in the drain to measure flow of spent wash. You shall also submit the design details of each treatment unit including inlet, effluent, quality, outlet effluent quality, hydraulic loading, organic loading, detention time, holding capacity, etc. within 15 days. 3. That you shall engage qualified and experienced personnel to operate the ETP. 4. That you shall commission a laboratory at the Effluent Treatment Plant site for conducting analysis of PH, SS MLSS, COD, BOD, Alkalinity Volatile Acids, TKN, TDS and Biogas. You shall collect samples and analysis as per schedule attached. 5. That you shall not discharge effluent directly or indirectly through drain into the Canal. 6. 4. That you shall commission a laboratory at the Effluent Treatment Plant site for conducting analysis of PH, SS MLSS, COD, BOD, Alkalinity Volatile Acids, TKN, TDS and Biogas. You shall collect samples and analysis as per schedule attached. 5. That you shall not discharge effluent directly or indirectly through drain into the Canal. 6. That in the event of using treated effluent for the irrigation, you shall take measures as per protocol for utilisation of distillery effluent for irrigation of agriculture crops recommended by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, within six months on 100 acres of land. The additional land shall be acquired and prepared as per protocol within a year. 7. That in the event of using treated effluent for irrigation, you shall construct the holding lagoons properly lined with HDPE and pitched with brick/stone for storage of treated effluent during rainy period/non-irrigation demand within six months. 8. That you shall submit your action plan within one month of issue of these directions for adopting any or combination of the above treatment and disposal systems based on performance evaluation of the existing effluent treatment system. The action plan shall clearly indicate the measures to be taken for improvement in the treatment systems along with the time-schedule. The performance evaluation studies along with the assessment of power requirement for the treatment methods shall also be submitted. 6. Plaintiff-company was asked to submit its action plan within the stipulated period failing which it was liable to closure. HSPCB too vide notice dated 27.1.2000 informed the plaintiff-company that the directions have been received by it from CPBC with regard to distilleries in Haryana in pursuance of order dated 27.8.1999 passed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, plaintiff-company was directed to comply with the said directions within the stipulated time failing which it was liable to face action under Section 33-A of the 1974 Act without giving any further time and notice. Plaintiff-company vide registered letter dated February 15, 2000 informed the Chairman, Civil Procedure CodeB to whom powers vested in Board under Section 5 of the 1986 Act had been delegated that it has decided to undertake a combination to scheme for disposal of treated effluent for forestry programme i.e. plantation of eucalyptus and ferti-irrigation to its own land and on the land of the neighboring farmers as and when required by them. It also submitted that it has got complete primary, secondary and tertiary Effluent Treatment Plant and is working on its full capacity. It further submitted to the following effect :- (i) that it has already engaged a qualified and experienced ETP Incharge to look after the entire operation of ETP assisted by a Chemist & Plant Operators; (ii) it has already well equipped laboratory at ETP to facilitate the analysis of all parameters and already collecting the samples for analysis as per schedule attached; (iii) it is not discharging/shall not discharge any effluent directly or indirectly into canal; (iv) it is using treated effluent for irrigation and arranging additional land as per requirement for plantation; (v) and it shall construct the lagoons for holding treated effluent during rainy/no demand season. 7. The plaintiff-company submitted a detailed action plan and informed the Chairman of the Civil Procedure CodeB that it shall start ferti-irrigation with treated effluent upto March, 2002. 8. Vide its letter dated May 2, 2000, the Civil Procedure CodeB in reference to the proposal submitted by the plaintiff-company, directed it that since it has opted for treatment of effluent for ferti-irrigation purposes, it must acquire 100 acres of land for utilisation of treated effluent for irrigation purpose latest by 1.6.2000 and comply with other directions issued vide letter dated 31.12.1999 in letter and spirit and submit progress report failing which stern action would be taken against it. 9. HSPCB issued notice dated 3.5.2000 stating therein that the legal sample collected on 25.2.2000 has shown that the BOD limit was exceeding the parameters limits prescribed by the Board. The relevant part of notice date 3.5.2000 reads as under :- "In this connection, it is intimated that as per analysis report of above said legal sample report, the following parameters are exceeding limits prescribed by the Board" Sr. No. A/p. No. & Date Name of Parametes Results Limit 1. BOD (3 days at 27 degree C) 86.67 mg/1 30 mg/1 In view of above, you are hereby directed to show cause by 21 days as to why your unit should not be closed and electric connection disconnected including captive powers under Section 33-A of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for non-compliance of provisions of the said Act and not complying with the directions of the Central Pollution Control Board. Sd/- 2.5.2000 O/o Regional Officer-I (HQ) for Administrator." DA/As above 10. On receipt of notice dated 3.5.2000, plaintiff-company vide its letter dated 25.5.2000 submitted that it has already complied with the directions of the Civil Procedure CodeB and the show cause notice is incorrect, false, frivolous and against the facts. 11. Meanwhile, Haryana State pollution Control Board vide memo dated 13.6.2000 informed the plaintiff-company that on consideration the application filed by it for obtaining consent under Sections 25/26 of the 1974 Act for the year 2000-2001 has been rejected because its unit has failed to take corrective measures. The relevant part of the Memo reads as under :- "Your above referred application was examined by the Board and it has been established that the trade effluent discharged form your unit is not conforming to the prescribed standards which violates the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Accordingly, show cause notice containing directions was issued vide letter No. 305 dated 3.5.2000. Your reply/representation in response to the above show cause notice has been examined by the Board and the Board is of the view that your unit failed to take corrective measures as per details given below :- Net installed adequate Effluent Treatment Plant as reveals from the following Analysis Reports :- Sr. No. A/p. No. & Date Name of Parameters Results Limits 1. 176 dt. 29.1.2000 BOD (3 days at 27 degree C) 86.67 mg/1 30 mg/1 required for Percolation 2. No.../015000 dt. 10.2.2000 BOD (3 days at 27 degree C) 92.50 mg/1 30 mg/1 2. Not complied with the Civil Procedure CodeB directions issued vide letter No. B-29021/1/90-Imp-III/64 dated 31.12.1999 & No. B-29021/I/90-Imp-III/8341 dated 2.5.2000. In view of above facts, the consent application submitted by you is hereby refused and in future your unit would be discharging effluent into sewer/drain/canal/river/ on land for percolation at your own risk and rendering yourself liable for legal action under Section 43/44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and all other rules/laws/orders by the Government/Board applicable in the matter. O/o Environmental Engineer - I (HQ) for Chairman Endst. No. HSPCB/98/Consent Dated : 13.6.2000. 12. O/o Environmental Engineer - I (HQ) for Chairman Endst. No. HSPCB/98/Consent Dated : 13.6.2000. 12. The case of the HSPCB, Chandigarh is that despite notice dated 3.5.2000, the plaintiff-company failed to take corrective measures and, therefore, the Board in exercise of powers conferred under Section 33-A of the 1974 Act, vide order dated 13.6.2000 ordered the closure of the plaintiff-company be sealing the plant and machinery, DG Set and disconnection of electric supply. Order dated 13.6.2000 reads as under :- "WHEREAS the unit M/s. Associated Distillery Ltd. Hissar is a highly polluting unit (Regd. Category) manufacturing Alcohol by the distillation process, and falls under 17 type of Large and Medium Scale Highly Polluting Category. WHEREAS during the course of production the unit is creating pollution and is discharging 375 KL per day of effluent (not fully treated) on the land for percolation and this adversely effects the sub soil water. WHEREAS according to the letter of Central Pollution Control Board vide No. B-29021/1/1/90-IMP III/64 dated 31.12.1999, the said industry has not been meeting the prescribed standards of treated effluents, and the matter was brought before the Honble Supreme Court. WHEREAS the Civil Procedure CodeB had intimated that the Honble Supreme Court, in its order dated 27th Aug., 1999 directed that CPBC and Haryana State Pollution Control Board will be at liberty, in fact duty bound to take such action as they deemed proper against the distillery in Haryana, in accordance with the law. WHEREAS the unit has been issued notices several times in the past and whereas the samples collected form the final outlet of the ETP had failed to meet the prescribed standards. The last show cause notice to close the unit under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was issued vide this office letter No. 305 dated 3.5.2000, the reply by the unit received on 7th June was not found satisfactory and thus rejected. WHEREAS the Civil Procedure CodeB vide their letter dated 31st Dec., 1999 and subsequent letter No. B-29021/1/90-IMP.III/8341 dated May 2, 2000, directed the unit under Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to take several corrective measures but the industry has failed to comply with the said Civil Procedure CodeB directions given as under, and continued discharging polluted effluent on the land for percolation. The discharge of polluted effluent with BOD more than 30 mg/1 for percolation is not permitted :- (i) The Distillery was asked to construct pucca and lined storage tanks with a minimum retention time of 3 months for storage of the spent wash during the monsoon and/or non-irrigation period. However, the unit had failed to take any steps to construct the storage tanks. The rainy season has almost started, therefore, if the untreated/not fully treated effluent is not stored during rainy season and is allowed to pass on the adjoining areas, the same would create havoc there. (ii) The capacity of the unit is 25 KL/day of alcohol and according to norms prescribed by Civil Procedure CodeB. 9 Hectares of land is requried per KI of alcohol produced, therefore, the unit requires 225 Hectares of land if the effluent is to be used for irrigation purposes and at least 100 acres was required to be acquired upto Ist June, 2000, as per the direction of Civil Procedure CodeB issued vide their letter No. B-29021/1/90-1MP. III/8341 dated 2nd May, 2000. However, the unit has reported to have acquired only 25 hectares so far out of which 10 acres of land has been spoiled by stagnation of effluent in recent past due to deposition of thick layer of black sludge and on 15 acres of land polluted effluent is standing for percolation and evaporation. Thus the unit has failed to acquire the required area of land as per directions of Civil Procedure CodeB. The effluent being discharged into smaller area of land is stagnating on the surface and is being allowed to percolate in the sub-soil which affects the drinking water and is not being used for irrigation purposes as was required according to the directions of the Civil Procedure CodeB. The depth prescribed for land irrigation was not to be more than 10 cms. as per the crop requirement and the total number of irrigation should not exceed 6 times of any crop. The unit has failed to follow these instructions and has allowed the untreated effluent to stay in the smaller area of land acquired by it so far and has failed to comply with the directions. The R.O. has reported that the stagnant water is giving foul smell and a thick-layer of black sludge is visible on land which is adjoining to the National Highway No. 10. The R.O. has reported that the stagnant water is giving foul smell and a thick-layer of black sludge is visible on land which is adjoining to the National Highway No. 10. (iii) The ground water quality was required to be monitored by installing one Handpump for every 20 hectares of area and one borewell for every ten hectares are on land, and ground water samples were supposed to be collected at least once a month. It has been reported that no such Handpump or Borewell has been installed in the land. (iv) The unit is reported to be discharging effluent along the National Highway and there is all likelihood of this effluent being consumed by animals or human beings. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 33-A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, it is hereby ordered in public interest to close down M/s. Associated Distillery Ltd., Hissar by sealing the plant and machinery and the DG Set and disconnection of electricity supply immediately. However, one small DG Set as needed would be allowed to operate the effluent treatment plant and provide single phase electricity for lighting purposes in the plant." 13. One copy each of the order was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar for ensuring the closure of the Unit, the Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer, Haryana State Electricity Board, Hissar for disconnection of the electric supply of the Unit, the Regional Officer and Environmental Engineer of the Board for compliance of the order and the Member-Secretary, Civil Procedure CodeB with reference to his letter dated 2.5.2000. 14. In the suit, the plaintiff-company has challenged the aforequoted order passed under Section 33-A of the 1974 Act inter-alia on the grounds that the action taken has been actuated by gross mala fides on the part of the defendants; the order is contrary to the provisions of Section 33-A of 1974 Act and is in violation of the provisions of Rule 34 of 1975 Rules which postulates that an order under Section 33-A of 1974 Act must contain reasons in writing whereas no reason whatsoever has been recorded. No show cause notice was given on the points mentioned in the closure order dated 13.6.2000. No show cause notice was given on the points mentioned in the closure order dated 13.6.2000. The closure of the Unit has been ordered on the instructions of Chief Minister, Haryana who is inimical towards Chaudhry Bhajan Lal, former Chief Minister of Haryana whom he thinks arch-rival as Shri Anoop Bishnoi, son-in-law of Chaudhry Bhajan Lal has interest in the plaintiff-company; the order is arbitrary, illegal as there is no provisions in the 1974 Act or 1975 Rules permitting the sealing of the factory premises. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for staying the operation of order dated 13.6.2000 and also for temporary order of injunction directing the defendants to open the Unit of the plaintiff by unsealing the lock. Notice of the suit as well as two applications for ad-interim injunction was given to the defendants (appellants herein) who contested the same. The defendants submitted that the Civil Procedure CodeB gave hearing to all the distilleries including that of the plaintiff on 11.9.1999 and issued directions under Section 5 of the 1986 Act vide letters dated 31.12.1999 and 2.5.2000. The defendants also pleaded that the plaintiff-company was directed to acquire 100 acres of land for utilisation of treated effluent for irrigation of agricultural crops latest by 1.6.2000 and comply with other directions issued vide letter dated 31.12.1999 but the plaintiff-company failed to comply with those directions. Defendants submitted that HSPCB took samples of the effluent discharged by the plaintiff-company and after evaluation of the analysis report, it was found that the effluent discharged was 86.67 mg./1 litre as against the limit of 30 mg./1 litre. Defendants further submitted that the plaintiff was directed to show cause as to why the Unit be not closed down and the electricity supply disconnected. Plaintiff submitted reply to the show cause notice and after considering the same, order dated 13.6.2000 ordering closure of the Industry by sealing the plant and machinery and D.G. Set and disconnection of electricity supply was passed. The defendants also controverted the grounds on which the impugned order was challenged by the plaintiffs. 15. Plaintiff submitted reply to the show cause notice and after considering the same, order dated 13.6.2000 ordering closure of the Industry by sealing the plant and machinery and D.G. Set and disconnection of electricity supply was passed. The defendants also controverted the grounds on which the impugned order was challenged by the plaintiffs. 15. Trial Court/on consideration of the material placed on record, vide order dated 29.6.2000 found prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff as it held that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the various provisions of 1974 Act and 1975 Rules. It also held that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated by way of damages in case injunction is not granted. It accordingly allowed the application for grant of ad-interim injunction and directed defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to unseal the lock and open the factory premises i.e. plant, machinery and generating set at the unit of the plaintiff-company. Defendant No. 5 was also directed to restore electric supply to the factory premises of the plaintiff within three days. Defendants, however, were permitted to proceed against the plaintiff-company after complying with the provisions of law. 16. Being aggrieved of the order of the trial Court, two first appeals were preferred; one by the Haryana Central Pollution Control Board and others and the other by Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, DHV. Vide order dated 12.7.2000, the learned Additional District Judge, Hissar dismissed the appeals thereby affirming the order of the trial Court. Hence, these two civil revisions; one filed by Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Chandigarh and others and the other by Superintending Engineer Operation Circle, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hissar. 17. Initially, when the civil revisions came up for hearing before me, Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants, contended that the Courts below gravely erred in law in allowing the applications and directing the defendants to unseal and open the Unit of the plaintiff-company though it was evidently patent on record that the Unit was not conforming to the parameters prescribed for BOD discharge and had not further complied with the directions given by the Civil Procedure CodeB and HSPCB inasmuch as it had not acquired 100 acres of land though there was a clear and specific direction in this regard by the Civil Procedure CodeB and HSPCB. Mr. Mr. Mohan Jain, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-company disputed the statement and sought time to file affidavit in order to show that the plaintiff-company has in its possession 100 acres of land for ferti-irrigation. In this regard, affidavit dated 24.7.2000 of K.P. Pandey, Vice President of the plaintiff-Company was filed. In the affidavit, details of land owned/acquired on lease by the plaintiff-company was given. Along with the affidavit, some agreements of lease as also Jamabandis and some photographs were annexed. On filing of the affidavit and the documents along with it, learned counsel for the plaintiff-company submitted that the plaintiff-company has in its possession land measuring 111 Acres 7 Kanals. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, advocate, counsel for the defendants contended that according to information available with the defendants, plaintiff-company is in possession of only 43 acres of land which includes the built-up portion of 24 cares. Since there was a serious dispute between the parties in regard to land owned and possessed by the plaintiff-company, Mr. Ajay Tiwari, Advocate of this Court was appointed Local Commissioner to determine the facts disclosed in affidavit dated 24.7.2000 filed by K.P. Pandey, Vice President of the plaintiff-company. Mr. Tiwari was directed to determine the area owned/acquired on lease and possessed by the plaintiff-company for the purpose of ferti-irrigation. Pursuant to order dated 25.7.2000, Mr. Ajay Tiwari, Advocate submitted detailed report dated 1.8.2000. In his report, he submitted that as far as lands mentioned at Serial Nos. 1, 3 to 13 in the affidavit of K.P. Pandey are concerned, it was physically visible that these were being irrigated with effluent. The land at Serial Nos. 1, 3 to 13 comes to nearly 98 acres. He further noticed that out of land measuring 43 acres mentioned at Serial No. 1, land measuring 21 acres 17 marlas has been utilised for effluent treatment plant whereas land measuring 21 acres 7 Kanals 5 Marlas is available for agricultural purpose. In regard to land measuring 12 acres 16 Marlas mentioned at Serial No. 2 of the affidavit, the Local Commissioner submitted that the affidavit, the Local Commissioner submitted that the same is situated at a distance of approximately 18 Kms. from the factory of the plaintiff-company. In regard to land measuring 12 acres 16 Marlas mentioned at Serial No. 2 of the affidavit, the Local Commissioner submitted that the affidavit, the Local Commissioner submitted that the same is situated at a distance of approximately 18 Kms. from the factory of the plaintiff-company. He submitted that likewise, land measuring 4 Kanals 13 Marlas at Serial No. 14 is at a distance of about 8 Kms and is in a different direction. A critical examination of the report shows that the total land available for ferti-irrigation purpose at serial No. 1 to 14 of the affidavit of K.P. Pandey is nearly 90 acres out of which land measuring 12 acres 16 Marlas is at a distance of 18 kms. and land measuring 4 Kanals 13 Marlas is at a distance of about 8 Kms. and is in a different direction meaning thereby that approximately 77 acres of land is available with the plaintiff-company for discharge of effluent. In regard to land which is at a distance of 18 kms. and 8 kms. Mr. Mohan Jain has filed another affidavit dated 4.8.2000 of K.P. Pandey, Vice President of the plaintiff-company stating therein that discharge of effluent would be stated from the land mentioned at Serial No. 2 of the affidavit dated 24.7.2000 i.e. land measuring 12 acres 16 Marlas and after completing the whole area mentioned at Serial Nos. 1, 3 to 13, it would again be starting from the said land mentioned at Serial No. 2. In regard to the query as to how the affluent would be taken at a distance of 18 and 8 kms. Counsel stated that it would be taken in tankers. 18. Be that as it may, the fact remains that as per protocol for utilisation of treated effluent for irrigation of agricultural crops recommended by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, the plaintiff-company was required to have in its possession nearly 100 acres of land by 1.6.2000 as per direction of the Civil Procedure CodeB issued vide letter No. B-29021/1/90-1MP, III/8341 dated 2nd May, 2000 so that treated effluent could be utilised for irrigation purposes but the plaintiff-company failed to acquire the land as per direction of Civil Procedure CodeB. The fact of discharging effluent in smaller area has been noticed in order dated 13.6.2000 wherein it is mentioned that :- " xxx the effluent being discharged into smaller area is stagnating on the surface and is being allowed to percolate in the sub-soil affects the drinking water." 19. It is also mentioned that the stagnated water is giving a foul smell and a thick layer or black sludge is visible on land which is adjoining to the National Highway No. 10. As per protocol for discharge of treated effluent, plaintiff-company was further required to construct Pucca and lined storage tank with a minimum retention time of 3 months for storage of spent wash monsoon/non-irrigation period. The ground water quality was required to be monitored by installing one handpump for every 20 hectares of area and one borewell for every ten hectares but no such corrective measures were taken by the plaintiff-company. 20. Though the counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-company contended that corrective measures in this regard have already been taken but no material in the regard has been placed on record in absence thereof, the submission of learned counsel cannot be accepted. 21. The finding of the first Appellate Court that it was for HSPCB to specify how the discharge of effluent can be brought within the parameters or the HSPCB should have suggested remedial measures to be taken for controlling discharge instead of taking extreme step of ordering closure of the Unit of the plaintiff-company, cannot be sustained because after the issuance of directions under Section 5 of 1986 Act by the Civil Procedure CodeB and under Section 33-A of 1974 Act by the HSPCB, the law enjoined on the plaintiff-company to take corrective measures as per protocol for utilisation of treated effluent for irrigation purposes. 22. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Advocate, counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff-company had not approached the Court with clean hands and had made misstatements. He contended that a person deliberately concealing material facts from Court is not entitled to any discretionary relief more so equitable relief of injunction. Counsel in this regard referred to para 9 of the plaint in which the plaintiff-company had stated to the following effect :- "That the plaintiff-company had already received consent for discharge of effluent under Sections 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, till March 31, 2000. Counsel in this regard referred to para 9 of the plaint in which the plaintiff-company had stated to the following effect :- "That the plaintiff-company had already received consent for discharge of effluent under Sections 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, till March 31, 2000. It had also applied to the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Chandigarh for the grant of consent for the year 2000-2001 in respect of the said Act of 1974 and consent was deemed to have been granted till March 31, 2001. 23. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Advocate, counsel for the defendants submitted that the statement of facts made by the plaintiff-company is wholly false. According to him, consent under the 1974 Act for the year 1999-2000 already stood declined vide order dated 11.8.1999 of HSPCB against which an appeal filed by the plaintiff-company is pending with the Appellate Authority. In regard to the consent for the year 2000-2001, he submitted that the consent for this year too was declined vide order dated 13.6.2000. From the perusal of the record, I find that the consent applied for discharge of effluent has been refused each year. For the year 1997-98, it was declined on 19.9.1998, for the year 1999-2000, it was declined on 11.8.1999. For the year 2000-2001, the plaintiff-company submitted application on 31.1.2000. It was returned by the Board to the plaintiff-company being in-complete on 3.2.2000. Plaintiff-company after completing the application in all respects, resubmitted it to the Board on 14.3.2000 which was rejected on 13.6.2000. Against all the orders decliming consent, appeals are pending before the Appellate Authorities. 24. The finding of the first Appellate Court that in absence of any provision for the return of application seeking consent, it would be deemed to have been granted, cannot be accepted because no rules in this regard have brought to my notice. Copy of notification dated 24.7.1998 issued by HSPCB whereby all previous orders of HSPCB in regard to the procedure for grant of consent were superseded, does not show that the application cannot be returned if it is not accompanied with complete documents required to be sent along with the application. I also do not agree with the finding of the first Appellate Court that till the appeal is decided by the Appellate Authority, consent could not have been said to be refused. I also do not agree with the finding of the first Appellate Court that till the appeal is decided by the Appellate Authority, consent could not have been said to be refused. Mere pendency of appeal against refusal of consent cannot be termed to enable the industry to carry on its operation especially when there is no stay granted by the Appellate Authority. The finding of first Appellate Court that consent for the year 2000-2001 was refused by the Regional Officer and not by HSPCB which alone was competent to take decision, is also not sustainable for the reason that firstly there was no challenge in the civil suit with regard to refusal of consent, and secondly from the perusal of the record, I find that in absence of Board Government had appointed the administrator to discharge the functions of the Board. The order refusing consent was passed by the Administrator but conveyed under the signatures of Regional Officer, Headquarters. 25. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Advocate also took exception to the finding of the first Appellate Court in part 22 of the judgment debtor wherein it has been stated that the Industry has already installed complete effluent treatment plant including the primary, secondary and tertiary treatment plant as per report dated 25.2.2000. Learned counsel contended that perusal of report dated 25.2.2000 would reveal that it has no where been stated that the Unit has installed tertiary treatment plant. According to the counsel, the Unit has not till date installed the tertiary treatment plant. 26. On the other hand, Mr. Mohan Jain, Advocate, counsel for the plaintiff-company contended that the plaintiff-company has installed complete effluent treatment plant which includes primary, secondary and tertiary treatment plant. 27. It is not necessary for me to go into this contention of learned counsel for the parties because the fact remains that BOD limit in case of disposal of effluent by the distilleries into in-land surface, water, river, steam has been prescribed at 30 mg./1 litre but since in the case of the plaintiff-company, BOD was exceeding 30 mg/1 litre, it opted to take corrective measures as per protocol for utilisation of treated effluent for irrigation of agricultural crop recommended by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi which prescribed limit of 100 mg/1 litre if the effluent after treatment was to be used for ferti-irrigation purposes. Considering the capacity of the Unit to manufacture its product and treated effluent to be discharged, plaintiff-company was required to acquire 100 acres of land by 1.6.2000 and 562 acres of land within one year of the issuance of the direction under Section 5 of the 1986 Act. As noticed earlier, the plaintiff-company is not in possession of 100 acres of land on which effluent after treatment could be discharged. The finding recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff was not violating the prescribed limit for discharging the treated effluent, thus, is wholly erroneous. 28. The finding of the Courts below that since spot inspection report dated 25.2.2000 revealed that effluent treatment plant was working satisfactorily, no action could be taken, is also not sustainable. Merely because the effluent Treatment Plant was working satisfactorily, did not mean that the treated effluent discharge was within the prescribed limit. According to the analysis report of legal samples collected on 25.2.2000, BOD limit was exceeding parameters of limit prescribed by the Board. The BOD was 86.67 mg/1 litre as against prescribed limit of 30 mg/1 litre. 29. The finding of the first Appellate Court that order dated 13.6.2000 was not in conformity with show cause notice dated 3.5.2000, is also not borne out from the record. Civil Procedure CodeB vide notice dated December 31, 1999 issued under Section 5 of the 1986 Act directed the plaintiff-company to take action as per detail at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 and it was asked to submit action plan within the stipulated period failing which it was liable for closure without any further notice. Vide notice dated 27.1.2000, HSPCB also reiterated the directions given by Civil Procedure CodeB vide its letter dated 31.12.1999 and further directed the plaintiff-company to comply with the said directions within the stipulated period failing which action under Section 33-A of 1974 Act would be taken against it. HSPCB vide notice dated May 3, 2000 intimated to the plaintiff-Company that as per analysis report of legal samples collected on 25.2.2000, effluent discharge was exceeding parameters limit prescribed by the Board. HSPCB vide notice dated May 3, 2000 intimated to the plaintiff-Company that as per analysis report of legal samples collected on 25.2.2000, effluent discharge was exceeding parameters limit prescribed by the Board. In the notice, the plaintiff-company was specifically called upon to show cause by 21 days as to why its unit be not closed down and electric supply disconnected under Section 33-A of the 1974 Act for non compliance of the provisions of the 1974 Act and not complying with the directions of the Civil Procedure CodeB. Order dated 13.6.2000 passed under Section 33-A of 1974 Act specifically refers to the direction dated 31.12.1999 and show cause notice dated 3.5.20000 issued by HSPCB for taking action under Section 33-A of 1974 Act whereby the plaintiff-company was informed that the sample collected from the final out-let has failed to meet the prescribed standards. It also refers to notice dated 2.5.2000 issued by Civil Procedure CodeB under Section 5 of 1986 Act to take several corrective measures and failure on the part of the plaintiff-company to comply with the said directions. A combined reading of show cause notice dated 3.5.2000 and order dated 13.6.2000 makes it clear that the order is in conformity with the show cause notice and is not violative of the principles of natural justice as has been held by the first Appellate Court. 30. The finding of the first Appellate Court that under Section 33-A of 1974 Act, the Board could order either the closure of the industry or stoppage of supply of electricity but was not competent to take conjunctive action, is against the plain reading of Section 33-A of 1974 Act. Section 33-A of 1974 Act reads as under :- 33-A. Power to give directions :- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, but subject to the provisions of this Act, and to any directions that the Central Government may give in this behalf, a Board may, in the exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under this Act, issue any directions in writing to any person, officer or authority, and such person, officer shall be bound to comply with such directions. Explanation :- For the avoidance of doubts, it is declared that the power to issue directions under the section includes the power to direct - (a) The closure, prohibition of regulation of any industry, operation or process, or (b) the stoppage of regulation of supply of electricity, water or any other service. 31. Reading of Section 33-A of 1974 Act makes it clear that for ensuring that the domestic and industrial effluents are not discharged without adequate treatment so as to render the water unsuitable as source of drinking water as well as for use in irrigation, it is within the competence of the Board to issue one or more directions and that includes the power to direct closure, prohibition, regulation or industry, operation, process and stoppage of regulation of supply of electricity, water, or any other service. 32. I also find merit in the contention of Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the defendants that the finding of the first Appellate Court is erroneous and against the record whereby it has been held that order under Section 33-A of 1974 Act could only be passed by the Board and since the order has been passed by the Chairman, the same is without jurisdiction. Section 11-A of 1974 Act provides for delegation of powers to the chairman. It provides that the Chairman of the Board shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed or as may, from time to time, be delegated to him by the Board. Reading of the minutes of the 95th meeting held on 23.2.1994 shows that power of the Board under Section 33-A of 1974 Act was delegated upon the Chairman of the Board. This being the case, the finding of the first Appellate Court are to the contrary, cannot be sustained. 33. Mr. Mohan Jain, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-company contended that the HPSCB did not have, jurisdiction to direct the sealing of the Unit or to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar to carry out the direction of the Board contained in order dated 13.6.2000 whereby he was directed to ensure the closure of the unit immediately. 33. Mr. Mohan Jain, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-company contended that the HPSCB did not have, jurisdiction to direct the sealing of the Unit or to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar to carry out the direction of the Board contained in order dated 13.6.2000 whereby he was directed to ensure the closure of the unit immediately. Learned counsel is right in urging that under Section 33-A of 1974 Act, Board is empowered only to direct the closure, prohibition, regulation of industry, operation, process and stoppage of regulation of supply of electricity, water or any other service and not the sealing of the industry. In Gopi Nath Ltd. v. Department of Environment, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & others, 72(1998) Delhi Law Times 536, the Delhi High Court held that the Board is empowered to direct closure of the offending industry but it cannot seal the entire unit thereby bringing unoffending activities to a standstill. The relevant portion of the judgment in this regard reads as under :- "A closure order is an order prohibiting the use of the premises as respects which an order is made for any purpose which violates the provisions of the Act and would not operate to close such user as is not found offending the provisions of the Act. Closure of the industry, operation or process would thus imply closure of only manufacturing or other such activity which is found offending the provisions of the Act through the management and/ or the workers of such Unit and even others like customers etc. may still have easy or regulated ingress of egress from such a Unit. Closure here would thus mean discontinuance of the objectionable activity. An order to seal the industry would lead to consequences much harsher than closure. Sealing would prevent access to an egress from (an area or space), and thus close (entrances) for this purpose. Sealing means to fasten with or as with seal; to close (an aperture, etc.) securely by placing a coating of wax, cement, or lead over the office, or, in wider sense, by any kind of fastening that must be broken before access can be obtained." 34. Sealing means to fasten with or as with seal; to close (an aperture, etc.) securely by placing a coating of wax, cement, or lead over the office, or, in wider sense, by any kind of fastening that must be broken before access can be obtained." 34. In order dated 13.6.2000, though the expression used in sealing but from complete reading of the order, one is not left in doubt that the direction given is, in fact, to close the plant and machinery and disconnect electric supply so as to prevent the unit of the plaintiff-company from discharging its treated effluent beyond the prescribed limit. The expression sealing has not been used in a sense in which it is being sought to be urged. The order does not prevent access to and egress from the premises or offices situated therein. The effect of sealing plant and machinery, diesel generating set and disconnection of electric supply is only to stop objectionable activity. 35. It is also erroneous to urge that the Board was not competent to issue direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar for ensuring the closure of the unit. Section 33-A of 1974 Act invests the Board to issue any direction to any person officer or an authority and that would also include the Executive Head (Deputy Commissioner) of the District where the industrial unit is situated. 36. Mr. Mohan Jain, Advocate then cited judgment in the case of The Managing Director (MIG), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. & another v. Ajit Parasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase & Stores), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., AIR 1973 Supreme Court 76 and Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 892 and contended that the discretion exercised by the Courts below in the matter granting injunction cannot be interfered with in revision. 37. It is true that the grant of an ad-interim injunction is always within the discretion of trial Court but, however, the same has to be exercised in accordance with reasoned and on sound judicial principle. While considering the grant of ad-interim injunction it is the duty of the Court to see whether its interference is necessary to protect the party applying for it from the particular kind of injury which is said to be irreparable. While considering the grant of ad-interim injunction it is the duty of the Court to see whether its interference is necessary to protect the party applying for it from the particular kind of injury which is said to be irreparable. The lawful exercise of its power and performance of its function by a statutory authority cannot be said to be an injury and as such the same cannot furnish a ground for granting an injunction. As a matter of fact, the grant of an injunction in such a case would tantamount to restraining the lawful authority from discharging its functions, the law has enjoined on it. In this case, order dated 13.6.2000 passed by the HSPCB was in the exercise of its power and performance of its functions under Section 33-A of the 1974 Act and the order having not been shown to be illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, I am of the view that the Courts below have acted illegally in exercise of their jurisdiction in allowing the application of the plaintiff-company for grant of ad-interim injunction. 38. Resultantly, both the civil revisions are allowed and orders of the Courts below set aside. As a consequence thereof application under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs. 39. It is, however, clarified that in case the plaintiff-company acquires on lease or otherwise 100 acres of land for discharge of its treated effluent and takes remedial measures in regard to other directions issued by the Civil Procedure CodeB vide letters dated 31.12.1999 and 2.5.2000 under Section 5 of 1986 Act and by HSPCB vide notice dated 3.5.2000 under Section 33-A of 1974 Act, it shall be at liberty to make representation in this regard to the HSPCB. On receipt of such a representation, the HSPCB shall be duty bound to decide the same justly and fairly in terms of Section 33-A of 1974 Act within a period of fifteen days of its receipt and fairly in terms of Section 33-A of 1974 Act within a period of fifteen days of its receipt by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of fifteen days of its receipt by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff-company. In case the plaintiff-company is aggrieved of the order so passed by the HSPCB in this regard, it shall be at liberty to apply to the trial Court for necessary relief and in case the trial Court is satisfied that the plaintiff-company has taken remedial measures as directed by the Civil Procedure CodeB and the HSPCB, then the trial Court shall pass order in accordance with law. Petition allowed.