ORDER 1. CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 23-3-2004, THIS PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN FILED WITHOUT FIRST APPROACHING THE HIGH COURT. WE SEE NO VALID GROUND TO BYPASS THE HIGH COURT AND DIRECTLY ENTERTAIN THIS PETITION. IT IS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER THAT BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THAT THE ACTION PLAN WAS PREPARED AS PER THE ORDERS OF THIS COURT AND, THEREFORE, INSTEAD OF FILING F THE PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, THIS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WAS FILED AS THE RESPONDENT MAY CONTEND THAT IT IS ONLY IMPLEMENTING THE ORDER OF THIS COURT. WE SEE NO JUSTIFICATION IN THIS PLEA. THOUGH IT SEEMS THAT THE ACTION PLAN DATED 5-9-2002 WITH REGARD TO CONTROL OF EMISSION FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES HAS BEEN PREPARED AS A RESULT OF OBSERVATIONS MADE IN PARA 46 IN THE CASE OF M. C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA1 AND THAT LED TO ISSUE OF LETTER DATED 24-4-2002 FROM G THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE WEST BENGAL STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE HIGH COURT IS PRECLUDED FROM DECIDING THE LEGALITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 2. IN THIS VIEW, WE DISMISS THE PETITION WITH LIBERTY TO THE PETITIONER TO APPROACH THE HIGH COURT. WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON MERITS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE HIGH COURT WOULD DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. STAY GRANTED ON 5-5-2004 WOULD CONTINUE FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS. ITS FURTHER CONTINUANCE WOULD DEPEND UPON THE ORDER THAT MAY BE PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT. COURT MASTERS