BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACJ. ( 1 ) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, one Sabyasachi Roychowdhury, an Advocate of this Court has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents and/or their men, agents or subordinates to cancel, withdraw and rescind the permission as granted to hold Book Fair at Kolkata Maidan from January 31, 2007 to February 11, 2007. The writ petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the State-respondents not to allow the respondent no. 8 to hold Book Fair at Kolkata Maidan. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to filing of this writ application may be epitomized thus: (a) In the month of December, 2006 the respondent No. 8 before us, filed another writ application describing that as a Public Interest Litigation being W. P. No. 28512 (W) of 2006 thereby praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents their servants etc. to implement the consensus/ agreement recorded in the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of kolkata Book Fair, 2007 held on November 9, 2006, a copy whereof was annexed thereto and marked as P-3 and for a direction to take all steps for holding the 32nd Book Fair for the year 2007 at its original venue at Kolkata maidan at Outram Road at the crossing of Park Street and Jawaharlal nehru Road forthwith. ( 3 ) THE case made out by the respondent No. 8 in the said writ application was that the said respondent No. 8 was an Association of Publishers and booksellers Guild of Kolkata and a society duly registered under the West bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 by the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporation, West Bengal and such Society was formed mainly with the object of promoting professional standard amongst the members, to co-operate for mutual benefit with other organizers concerned in the creation, protection and distribution of books, to encourage the spread of literacy and education in India and throughout the World, to provide the assistance and consultancy service to spotlight future needs, to initiate new techniques and applications and to improve the technical and educational qualification of the members of the Guild and their staff etc. According to the respondent No. 8, from the year 1976 it had been taking the entire responsibility for holding a Book Fair at the Maidan of Kolkata and for the purpose of holding such fair for the year 2007 the respondent No. 8 duly issued prospectus to all concerned. The respondent No. 8 claimed that for holding the Book Fair at Maidan, the site of Outram Road at the crossing of park Street and Jawaharlal Nehru Road was immensely necessary not only for the convenience of 25 lakhs of visitors but also for the fact that the required area of the ground worked out to be 1135. 69 sq. meter or 28 acres approximately and that no other suitable area was available in any other part of the Kolkata. ( 4 ) IN the said application it was stated that in a meeting taken place on November 9, 2006 called by the Chief Secretary, Government of West bengal, for the purpose of holding discussion regarding proposal to hold kolkata Book Fair at Kolkata Maidan, at the Writers' Buildings attended by (i) Major General Dipak Roy, SM, G. 0. C. (commanding) Bengal Area, (ii)Brig. D. K. Ghosh, Dy. G. 0. C. Bengal Area, (iii) P. Roy, IAS, Addl. Secretary, home Department, (iv) Dr. P. K. Agarwal, Principal Secretar;, P. W. D. , (v)Sri P. Mukhopadhyay, Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, and (vi) Sri Tridib kumar Chatterjee, Hony. General Secretary, Publishers and Booksellers guild it was formally recorded that all the persons except the representative of Army authorities agreed that such Book Fair should be held after complying with all the law of the land for the time being in force but the general Officer (Commanding) Bengal Area stated that it was a consistent stand of the Army authorities that Maidan should not be subject to the environmental degradation. Army authorities, however, maintained that if this Hon'ble Court gave permission to hold Book Fair at the Maidan, the army authorities would have no objection. The General Officer (Commanding) Bengal Area further clarified that the Army would not be a party to the application which might be filed either by the State Government or by any other agency for holding the Book Fair in the Maidan. To the aforesaid effect minutes recorded by the Chief Secretary, Government of west Bengal were annexed to the writ application. To the aforesaid effect minutes recorded by the Chief Secretary, Government of west Bengal were annexed to the writ application. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the respondent No. 8, in view of the stance taken by the Army authorities they were unable to hold Book Fair and as such, the said attitude of the Army Authorities give rise to the cause of action for filing of the said writ application. ( 6 ) THIS Bench, ultimately, by order dated January 12, 2007 disposed of the said writ application by holding that the said writ application in the form of Public Interest Litigation relating to environmental laws of the country was not maintainable as the respondent No. 8 was advancing its own cause. ( 7 ) THIS Bench further made it clear that it had otherwise not gone into the question whether in the facts of the said case such permission should be granted or not in accordance with law of the land and that the rejection of that application would not stand in the way of the respondent No. 8 in approaching the appropriate forum in accordance with law. ( 8 ) AFTER the dismissal of the said writ application by this Bench, the respondent No. 8 again approached the Army Authorities for granting permission which the Army Authorities earlier rejected on the ground that unless this Court granted permission they were not in a position to accord sanction. ( 9 ) IT appears from records, that three days thereafter, on January 15, 2007, the respondent No. 8 before us, through its Hony. General Secretary, applied before General Officer (Commanding), Head Quarters Bengal Area praying for issue of 'no Objection Certificate' to hold the said Book Fair at its original venue, i. e. Maidan. In the said letter, the said Hony. General secretary specifically stated that the respondent No. 8 had obtained necessary clearance from other governmental agencies and departments like Kolkata police, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Service, Pollution Control Board, kolkata Municipal Corporation, Public Works Department, Government of west Bengal and Ors. In the said letter, the said Hony. General secretary specifically stated that the respondent No. 8 had obtained necessary clearance from other governmental agencies and departments like Kolkata police, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Service, Pollution Control Board, kolkata Municipal Corporation, Public Works Department, Government of west Bengal and Ors. ( 10 ) IT further appears from records that on the basis of such application, the Deputy Secretary (Landc) by letter dated January 16, 2007 informed that the Government had granted sanction for temporary use of Kolkata Maidan from January 31, 2007 to February 11, 2007 for holding the Book Fair on terms and conditions as indicated in the Ministry of Defence's letter dated 11th June, 2002 and the letter dated 21. 01. 2003, as modified vide Para 2 of the said letter. By the said letter, it was specifically made clear that the permission was granted subject to following conditions in modification of the letter dated June 11, 2002: (a) there should be no environmental and other degradation of the land and it should be restored to its original condition with appropriate cleanliness by the licensee at its cost; (b) license fee, chargeable will be Rs. 250/- per day in stead of Rs. 100/- per day as prescribed in MOD letter mentioned above; (c) minimum security deposit by the organizer would be Rs. 20,000/- in place of Rs. 10,000/- as laid down in the above mentioned letter. ( 11 ) IT further appears from the affidavit filed in this case by the Army authorities that subsequently on January 18,2007, Lt. Col. 100/- per day as prescribed in MOD letter mentioned above; (c) minimum security deposit by the organizer would be Rs. 20,000/- in place of Rs. 10,000/- as laid down in the above mentioned letter. ( 11 ) IT further appears from the affidavit filed in this case by the Army authorities that subsequently on January 18,2007, Lt. Col. Assistant Quarter master for General Officer (Commanding) had written a letter to the commissioner of Police, Kolkata informing him that the local Military authorities had no objection to the proposal for holding the Kolkata Book fair, 2007 at Brigade Parade ground from January 31,2007 to February 11, 2007 subject to the following conditions: (a) stipulations as laid down in the first letter of the Ministry of Defence referred to above; (b) compliance with the Hon'ble High Court's order dated November 27,2003 in W. P. 7987 of 2002; (c) No commercial activities including hawking and selling of wares other than books would be permitted at the above site; (d) parking of buses and other vehicles would be restricted to the existing roads and tracks only; (e) the entire area used for the said function would be cleared by removing all garbage etc. and to be restored to its original form immediately after the function and the joint inspection of the site would be carried out at 10 hours on February 14, 2007; (g) trees existing at the site will be duly protected and no damage should be caused to other existing structures. It was further pointed out that local Military Authority reserved the right to cancel or rescind the said permission at any stage or time without assigning any reason for the same. ( 12 ) IT appears from the affidavit-in-opposition used by the respondent no. 8 in this application that on January 19, 2007 the Commissioner of police, Kolkata informed the Hony. General Secretary of the respondent no. ( 12 ) IT appears from the affidavit-in-opposition used by the respondent no. 8 in this application that on January 19, 2007 the Commissioner of police, Kolkata informed the Hony. General Secretary of the respondent no. 8 that pursuant to the request made by the respondent No. 8 vide letter dated January 19,2007, the respondent No. 8 was permitted to hold the book Fair at the venue indicated in the letter dated January 18, 2007 issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata with constructional work from January 19,2007 since the respondent No. 8 had furnished the "requisite clearance" from the Public Works Department, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services, West Bengal, the Pollution Control Board and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. It was further stated that the terms and conditions would remain the same as communicated in the earlier provisional allotment order dated January 18, 2007. ( 13 ) AT this stage it may not be out of place to mention here that the provisional allotment order NO. 821/ MBN dated January 18,2007 was passed on the basis of the letter written by the Army Authorities to the commissioner of Police, Kolkata direct and not on the basis of application filed by the respondent No. 8. Aqcording to the terms and conditions mentioned in the provisional allotment order dated January 18, 2007 there were 18 different conditions imposed and it was specifically stated that such provisional order was given in favour of the respondent No. 8 for holding fair from January 31, 2007 to February 11, 2007 as per "no objection" conveyed by the local Military Authorities vide letter dated 18. 01. 2007 subject to adherence to the terms and conditions appended to the said provisional order. ( 14 ) THIS application was moved on January 19,2007 for the first time along with two other intervening applications filed by two different parties. On that day, we asked the learned Advocate General whether any permission had been granted by the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata for holding Book fair at the Maidan pursuant to the permission granted by the Army authorities to which the learned Advocate General replied that till that time on January 19, 2007 no permission had been granted. ( 15 ) SIMILARLY, we asked Mr. ( 15 ) SIMILARLY, we asked Mr. Kallol Bose, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Pollution Control Board whether such permission had been granted by the Pollution Control Board when Mr. Bose answered in the negative and Mr. Mitra, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 8 conceded that till then even the Kolkata Municipal corporation had not granted any permission for holding any Book Fair at that place. ( 16 ) IN such a situation, we, by our interim order dated January 19, 2007 recorded that it was highly improper on the part of the respondent No. 8 to authorize its men and agents to dig the Maidan and to erect bamboo structures as if it had already obtained permission from the relevant authorities and in such circumstances, we restrained the respondent No. 8 from even sending any men, agents etc. for further making any preparation for holding Book Fair by either digging or damaging any part of the Maidan so long all the authorities sanctioned under the law gave permission for holding the said Book Fair. ( 17 ) ON that date, we also passed direction for filing affidavit-in-opposition and the reply and fixed the matter on January 25, 2007. We also directed the present writ petitioner to make the Kolkata Municipal Corporation a party respondent and to serve a copy of the application upon the learned advocate, who was present in Court and had instruction to appear on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. ( 18 ) BY the said order we also made it clear that in the event, in the meantime, permission to hold Book Fair was granted by the statutory authorities, the respondent No. 8 would be free to proceed with the preparation but they will do it at their own risk and peril and the fate of the fair would depend upon the outcome of the present writ application. ( 19 ) ON 25th January, 2007 when the matter came up for further hearing, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 8 as well as the Army Authorities. We found from the application of Subhas Dutta, who wanted to intervene in the matter that the State Pollution Control board had monitored the ambient air quality within the Book Fair ground of Kolkata in 2001 and some alarming findings got surfaced. We found from the application of Subhas Dutta, who wanted to intervene in the matter that the State Pollution Control board had monitored the ambient air quality within the Book Fair ground of Kolkata in 2001 and some alarming findings got surfaced. According to the said report, the high concentration of average 611 ug/ m3 of RPM in the ambient air was recorded in the fair premises for the year 2001. According to such report, the highest level of RPM recorded was 1316 ug/ m3 and that the level of RPM varied between four and nine times of the background concentration. It was pointed out that in terms of USERPA 24 hours standards, when RPM level exceeds 500 ug/ m3, premature death of ill and elderly people was indicated and that the healthy people are also expected to experience adverse symptoms that affect their normal activities. The said report appearing from the Website of West Bengal State Pollution control Board itself disclosed that the State Pollution Control Board advised the Book Fair Authorities for sprinkling sufficient quantity of water on the fair ground for control of RPM level and also to alarm visitors to the fair about the possible hazards of high level of RPM over public announcement system. ( 20 ) IN view of the aforesaid fact appearing from the application of Sri subhas Dutta, on that date, as we could not conclude the hearing, we directed the State Pollution Control Board to produce before us the concentration of rpm in the Book Fair and the clear records during the fair days right from the year 2001 till the last year. ( 21 ) WE further directed that the Board should also disclose the average rpm level recorded at the ordinary time in that area. Further direction was given to the State Pollution Control Board to disclose whether it had during the Book Fair days at all material times kept watch on the RPM level in the fair premises indicating the level of RPM at the relevant point of time. ( 22 ) THE moment we dictated up to that stage of our interim order dated january 25, 2007, Mr. ( 22 ) THE moment we dictated up to that stage of our interim order dated january 25, 2007, Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, the learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the State Pollution Control Board Clarified his stand by stating that after the Book Fair of 2001, his client never measured actual RPM level in the ambient air in any of the subsequent Book Fairs but his client actually measured the said RPM level in and around Maidan area in general. ( 23 ) MR. Bhattacharya's client was further directed to produce the recording of RPM level in the ambient air from the meter installed at the top of Victoria memorial itself throughout the year for the last 4 years. ( 24 ) THIS Bench further recorded in the said order that the Army Authority granted permission on the basis of the representation of the respondent no. 8 that it had obtained "necessary clearance from other governmental agencies and departments like Kolkata Police, West Bengal Fire and emergency Services, Pollution Control Board, Kolkata Municipal corporation, P. W. D Government of West Bengal and others". ( 25 ) WE, however, found that Chief Manager (Marketing, Licence and amusement) by letter dated 19th January 2007 merely informed the Honorary general Secretary of the respondent No. 8 that pending all formalities, the respondent had been given a "go ahead" permission from Kolkata Municipal corporation to hold the book fair at the permitted venue. We, however, observed that such "go ahead" permission was not in conformity with the provisions contained in Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act or the Rules and regulations framed thereunder. We were also prima facie convinced that the socalled permission granted by the Fir controlling authority was not in conformity with the West Bengal Fire Services Act 1950 or Rules framed thereunder and in such situation, we modified our earlier interim order by restraining the respondent No. 8 from proceeding further with the preparation of fair until further orders. ( 26 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the matter has appeared today for further hearing. ( 27 ) AT the outset, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the Pollution Control Board had placed before us some documents signed by the Member Secretary and Chief Scientist of the West Bengal pollution Control Board giving comparison of RPM data in respect of Kolkata book fairs held in 2001 and 2002. ( 27 ) AT the outset, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the Pollution Control Board had placed before us some documents signed by the Member Secretary and Chief Scientist of the West Bengal pollution Control Board giving comparison of RPM data in respect of Kolkata book fairs held in 2001 and 2002. It appears from the said data that for the year 2001 EPM in microgram per cubic meter had risen to 1316. 28 ug/m3 on the 11th day which was the maximum; whereas in the next year the maximum RPM recorded was 372. 4 ug/m3 on the 11th day. It may not be out of place to mention here that on the earlier day Mr. Bhattacharya submitted before us that after the fair of 2001, there was no further measurement of rpm level in the Fair premises and for the above reason, we directed him to produce the chart showing the level RPM in other area including the surroundings of Victoria Memorial Hall which is situated one km. away from the place of book fair. ( 28 ) TODAY, when we asked Mr. Bhattacharya as to why further measurement of RPM was not taken for the next four years, namely, 2003 to 2006, Mr. Bhattacharya answered that as the Pollution Control Board controlled the RPM level by sprinkling of water during the fair-days in the year 2002, they did not feel the necessity of further measuring such RPM level in the next four book fairs held in the years between 2003 and 2006. ( 29 ) FROM the papers submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya today, it appears that if the RPM level or PM-10 concentration remains within the range of 151-350, the atmosphere should be deemed to be "unhealthy" and the effect of such unhealthy atmosphere may cause mild aggravation of symptoms to susceptible persons with irritation in the healthy population and that the persons with weak heart and respiratory ailments should reduce physical exertion and outdoor activity. ( 30 ) ALTHOUGH Mr. ( 30 ) ALTHOUGH Mr. Bandyopadhyay appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner strenuously contended that we should not take into consideration those materials submitted before us as those are not certified in accordance with the provisions of law, even if we accept those papers for the sake of argument to have been issued by the appropriate authority, in our view, in spite of being aware of the fact that the presence of PM-10 concentration within the range of 151-350 ug/m3 is unhealthy, there was no just reason for the State pollution Control Board for not measuring the RPM level in the next four book fairs and at the same time, there was no ground for giving clearance for holding book fair, knowing it fully well that the atmosphere was unhealthy. It is fairly submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that according to limit prescribed by various environmental laws, presence of 100 PM-10 concentration (yearly standard) in a year is the highest limit which must be maintained by the pollution Control Board. Mr. Bhattacharya, however, tried to convince us that in no part of Kolkata or even in other States, the FM-10 concentration level is below that level and in such a situation, there cannot be any permission for holding any fair in any part of India. ( 31 ) FROM the monthly average RPM collection through different monitoring stations, it appears that RPM level is highest during the months of January and February and from the month of June till October, the level is in or around 60 (by yearly standard) which is well within the maximum limit permissible under the environmental laws. ( 32 ) AFTER going through the aforesaid report, we are of the view that when the Parliament has in its wisdom enacted the laws thereby limiting the prescribed RPM level at 100 microgram per cubic meter (by yearly standard), at any cost, such limit should be maintained and it is the duty of the State Pollution Control Board authorities to earnestly endeavour to reduce the same at any rate at least to that level. The law was enacted in the year 1986 and in the meantime 21 years have passed. The law was enacted in the year 1986 and in the meantime 21 years have passed. Even after the lapse of 21 years, if the Pollution Control Board authorities decide to ignore the said standard prescribed by the Parliament, we are left with no other alternative but to describe the action of the Pollution Control Board as a reckless one causing health hazard to the public in general. We have already indicated that even in the EPM chart given in the year 2002 during the book fair, at no point of time it was below 100 in micrograin per cubic metre and the maximum level recorded was 372. 4 ug/m3 which is about four times the maximum level sanctioned by law. In spite of such fact, the State Pollution control Board for the reason best known to them decided not to measure the level of RPM in any future book fair although in the year 2001 the level had risen to more than 1300 at one point of time. ( 33 ) WE have already pointed out that on 19th January, 2007 when we had entertained the present writ application, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that there was no sanction from other local authorities and such order was recorded at about 3. 00 p. m. of that day. But it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition that on the self-same day, all the authorities gave the so-called clearance. In our opinion, such conduct on the part of the respondent authorities speaks for itself that they had not done their duties before giving such certificate when the law requires detailed investigation of various factors prescribed in the Statute and the RPM level is only on of the statutory ingredients. We are mostly concerned by the attitude of the state Pollution Control Board in the matter of granting sanction for holding fair although it is quite conscious of the position that the existing pollution level is far above the limit prescribed under the Statute and in case any fair is held, where more than lakhs of people will congregate, the presence of rpm level will definitely increase. We have already pointed out that we fail to find any reason for not measuring the RPM level in the fair-ground during the earlier four years and if those were produced, we could easily assess whether the State Pollution Control Board had really done any duty whatsoever entrusted upon it for reducing RPM level in the air for the sake of health of the citizens of this State. ( 34 ) WE are also not at all impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that this fair should be taken to be an exception. The laws made by the Parliament are made not for defiance but for compliance and in those Environmental Protection Statutes there is no provision for giving any exemption to any organization in exercise of any special power. Although Mr. Bhattcharya, repeatedly submitted before us, that his client being the specialist on the subject, this Court should not interfere with its decision and can pass necessary order for supervising the various restrictions imposed by his client, we are not at all impressed by such submission because of the peculiar way in which the Board has proceeded in this matter. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Sugar Cane G and S Sugar shareholders vs. T. N. Pollution Control Board reported in AIR 1998 SC 2614 that grant of consent by Pollution Control Board on condition to be satisfied later was not in accordance with the spirit of the Environmental protection laws. ( 35 ) WE now propose to deal with the various legal points raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 36 ) IN the case of Subhas Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 1991 (1) SCC 598 , the Supreme Court held that right to live is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. ( 36 ) IN the case of Subhas Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 1991 (1) SCC 598 , the Supreme Court held that right to live is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs, the Supreme Court proceeded, the quality of life in derogation of law, a citizen has right to have recourse to writ jurisdiction for removing pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life and a writ petition for the prevention of pollution is maintainable at the instance of the affected persons or even by a group of social workers or journalists. The Supreme Court, however, in the said decision pointed out that a person invoking such jurisdiction must approach the Court for upholding the fundamental right of affected persons and recourse to proceedings should be taken by a person genuinely interested in the protection of the society on behalf of the community and personal interest, grudge or enmity cannot be enforced through the process of Court through Public Interest Litigation. According to Supreme Court, if such petitions with oblique motive are entertained it would amount to abuse of the process of Court preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from the Court and therefore, it is the duty of the Court to discourage such petition and to ensure that course of justice was not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction for personal matter under the garb of Public Interest Litigation. ( 37 ) SO far as the first part of observations made by the Supreme Court in the said case is concerned, it definitely supports the petitioner. So far as the observation made in the later part of the judgment is concerned, we are of the view that in this case no material has been placed before us showing that the writ petitioner before us, an Advocate of this Court, has filed this application for his personal interest, grudge or enmity so as to brand him as unscrupulous litigant. Moreover, we have already found that apprehension of the writ petitioner was quite justified having regard to the materials placed before us by the State Pollution Control Board or through its own website, even if we ignore the submission of Mr. Bandyopadhyay that the materials placed before us was not given by the appropriate authority. We, thus, find that the said decision is of no help to Mr. Mitra. ( 38 ) IN the case of Chairman and M. D. BPL Ltd. vs. S. P. Gururaja and Ors. reported in 2001 (8) SCC 567, the Supreme Court was dealing with the matter against the decision of the High Court under Article 226 in case of allotment of land and the writ petition challenging such allotment was filed one year thereafter; but by that time, the allottee not only had taken possession of the land but had also made sufficient investment (about Rs. 80 crore in the said case ). In such circumstances, the Supreme Court was of the view that delay had defeated equity and the High Court erred in not taking that aspect into consideration and allowing the writ petition. In the case before us, the permission was conveyed on 16th January, 2007 and the writ application was filed on 18th January, 2007 and the moment we find that the materials disclosed before us by the State Pollution Control Board justify filing of this application, the questions of maintainability, locus standi etc. become irrelevant and inconsequential. ( 39 ) IT is now settled law that in this type of litigation alleging violation of environmental law, the burden is on the person who wants to alter status quo and the risk of harm to the environment or to the human life is to be decided in public interest, according to the principle to be followed by a reasonable person. [see Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M. V. Nayudu reported in 1999 (2) SCC 718 . ] In the case before us, as pointed out earlier, the documents produced by the Pollution Control Board show that there has been deliberate violation of the norms fixed by the Statutes and in such a situation, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner without any just cause had filed such application. ] In the case before us, as pointed out earlier, the documents produced by the Pollution Control Board show that there has been deliberate violation of the norms fixed by the Statutes and in such a situation, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner without any just cause had filed such application. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 1446 , the violation on the part of the statutory authority to carry out statutory duty if seriously undermines the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and if it appears to a Court that the said authority has not taken the action required to be taken by them in law and that their inaction had jeopardized the right to live of the citizens of this country or any section of it, it is the duty of the Court to intervene. We, thus find that the aforesaid decision cited by Mr. Mitra is of no assistance to his client. ( 40 ) IN the case of Kusumbala vs. UOI and Ors. reported in 2006 (6) SCC 180 , a bidder who participated in the process of tender subsequently filed a public Interest Litigation and in such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that she herself having claimed to be a tenderer, the said writ application should be dismissed and consequently, the said writ application styled as public Interest Litigation was dismissed. We fail to appreciate how the said decision can be of any help to the respondent No. 8 in this case. ( 41 ) MR. Mitra as a last resort tried to convince us that the averments made in the writ application are not sufficient and the affidavit has been affirmed without disclosing the actual source of available records from which the writ petitioner derived information and as such, we should summarily reject such application and in support of such submission Mr. Mitra relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. vs. Company Law Board and Ors. reported in AIR 1967 SC 995. We are afraid, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Mitra relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. vs. Company Law Board and Ors. reported in AIR 1967 SC 995. We are afraid, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Mitra that principle regarding verification of pleadings applicable to a litigation involving private disputes can be held to be applicable in case of Public Interest Litigation and particularly in a case where from the materials placed from the side of the respondents it is apparent that the respondent authorities failed to discharge their statutory duties causing health hazards of the public in general. Moreover, the documents relied upon by the writ petitioner were various judgements passed by this Court where the holding of the same book fair was the subject-matter and the State Government and the Army authority jointly submitted before the Court that they have taken decision not to permit any authority to hold any fair at Maidan. Before granting permission to the respondent No. 8 hold fair for the year 2006, the State government even prayed for permission from this Court for clearance on the assurance that the same would be for the last time and that in future, the fair would be held in the Salt Lake area. Therefore, those documents cannot be discarded for the technical objection that the source was not properly verified. ( 42 ) ALL the decisions cited by Mr. Mitra are, thus, of no avail to his client. ( 43 ) SIMILARLY, none of the decisions cited by Mr Bhattacharya, viz. 1) 1991 (1) SCC 598 ; 2) 1996 (5) SCC 647 ; 3) 2002 (10) SCC 606 ; 4) 2004 (3) SCC 349 ; 5) 2004 (9) SCC 362 supports inaction on the part of the State Pollution control Board in discharge of its Statutory duties; those, on the other hand, support the contention of the writ petitioner before us and point out the onerous duty of the State Pollution Control Board. ( 44 ) MR. Protik Prakash Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of one of the interveners, viz. , Bhasa Shaheed- Smarak Samity and others, reiterated the submissions made on behalf of Mr. Mitra and tried to convince us that the writ petitioner being an Advocate of this Court has no locus standi to maintain the present application. ( 44 ) MR. Protik Prakash Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of one of the interveners, viz. , Bhasa Shaheed- Smarak Samity and others, reiterated the submissions made on behalf of Mr. Mitra and tried to convince us that the writ petitioner being an Advocate of this Court has no locus standi to maintain the present application. We have already pointed out that once we find from the documents produced on behalf of the Pollution control Board that the apprehension of the writ petitioner is quite justified, we are not prepared to hold that the writ petitioner with mala fide intention filed this writ application. ( 45 ) AT this stage, it may not be out of place to mention here that even if a writ application styled as Public Interest Litigation is found to be strictly not maintainable but in the long run, if materials come before the Court showing that there is deliberate violation of statutory provisions causing violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, at the time of hearing of such writ application, the question of maintainability of such writ application becomes insignificant. (See Sibraj Rao Nilangekar Patil vs. Dr. Mahesh madhba Gosami reported in AIR 1987 SC 294 ) ( 46 ) IN view of what have been stated above, we find substance in this writ application and we, accordingly, hold that the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in this case in a hot haste gave permission to the respondent No. 8 for holding the book fair without even complying with the provisions not only contained in the Environmental Protection Laws but also the local laws, which are required to be complied with and consequently, we issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, their men and/or subordinates to cancel, withdraw and rescind the permission granted to hold book fair at the Kolkata Maidan from 31st January, 2007 to 11th February, 2007 specially because such permission was granted in violation of environmental Laws causing gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India at the cost of public health. The writ application is, thus, allowed to the extent indicated above. The writ application is, thus, allowed to the extent indicated above. ( 47 ) THE respondent No. 8 is directed to restore possession of the Maidan ground to the Army authority and to bring it back to the original position in which the same was handed over to them at their cost. Such exercise should be completed positively within one week from today. ( 48 ) THE applications for intervention are also disposed of in terms of this order. ( 49 ) AFTER this order is passed, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 8 prays for stay of operation of the order. In view of what have been stated above, we find no reason to stay our order. Prayer for stay is refused. Writ application allowed. .