ORDER : 1. The writ petition seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents restraining them from unloading and loading coal on the eastern side of the Railway siding at the Ballabgarh Railway Station, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana. Having regard to the fact that it was submitted on behalf of the respondents at an earlier stage that arrangements had been made subsequent to the service of the writ petition upon them to eliminate the coal dust settling on premises in the New Friends Colony, which is adjacent to the particular Railway siding, the Haryana Pollution Control Board was requested on 16th November, 2000 to inspect the premises and make a report. Pursuant thereto, a report has been made on 13th December, 2000 by the said Pollution Control Board. It is re-produced in extenso : "In pursuance to Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 16/11/2000 in the above cited writ petition. The said area was visited by the Regional Officer, Ballabgarh Region, Ballabgarh on 7/12/2000. As per the report submitted, the Railway Coal handling yard is situated adjoining the Friends Colony of Ballabgarh. At the time of inspection the manual unloading of coal from Railway Wagon to the trucks was in process. It was observed that coal dust was spreading into the adjoining Friends Colony, Ballabgarh. Since this colony is just touching the Railway Coal handling yard boundary, lot of coal dust settling was observed in the colony. It is further submitted that even the best water sprinkling system may not be effective because coal handling activities in railway yard is not streamlined and every thing is being done manually, so it is suggested the best option to prevent such pollutions is that this coal unloading should be shifted away from the residential area as any dust suppression system may not work as the area of coal handling is just touching the residential colony." 2. The respondents have not chosen to appear today. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 now appears and says that he was not present upto now because he had gone to call the learned Solicitor General. We see no reason why, in the circumstances, we should hear him. It appears that it was more important to him to call the Solicitor General than to remain present to defend the writ petition. 4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is made absolute, as prayed. We see no reason why, in the circumstances, we should hear him. It appears that it was more important to him to call the Solicitor General than to remain present to defend the writ petition. 4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is made absolute, as prayed. 5. No order as to costs.