JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, CJ. The above public interest litigation is filed for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 & 2 Boards namely, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Central Pollution Control Board to identify and prescribe appropriate effluent treatment systems for respondents-6 to 23, taking into account the best available technologies including "Zero Pollution Technology" and to directing the respondents-l &3 to issue closure notices to Distilleries which do not have the Zero Pollution Technology in place until respondents-l & 3 identify and prescribe for distilleries the best available technologies and they are implemented. 2. According to Sri. B.K. Sampath Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioner, the "Zero Pollution Technology" is more efficient in treatment of effluents and it can be set up by Distilleries with equipments that are locally available, the Zero Pollution Technology is also called as Fermented Molasses Solubles (FMS) or condensed Molasses Technology which can achieve treatment of effluents more effectively at l/Sth the cost of setting up a sugar factory and such technology results in additional benefit of providing of Cattle feed or Bio-Fertilizers. He further submits that said "Zero Pollution Technology" is being implemented in foreign countries like Europe and USA and are being adopted in the neighboring State of Goa. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondents-l to 3 submits that all contesting respondents viz., the distilleries companies are permitted to operate only after getting consent from the 1st respondent Pollution Control Board and permission is accorded only after satisfying that the distilleries companies have fulfilled all the conditions contemplated in the relevant statutes. The respondents-l to 3 also submits that as on today, there is no violation of any of the conditions or any of the Rulings of the Apex Court; in the event if it is brought to their notice of any violation, conditions of consent, provisions of the statute or the Rulings of the Court, certainly they would take stringent action against such erring distilleries companies in the manner known to law and if it is found to be true, the respondents-l to 3 would have no hesitation to take steps for closure of such companies. 4. 4. After hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel and on careful consideration of the material on record we are of the considered opinion that when the distilleries companies are operating only after obtaining consent given by the competent authorities and as long as there is no specific violation either with regard to the consent letters or any violation of the relevant statute or the Rulings of the Courts, it may not be proper for this Court to direct the respondents-1, 2 & 3 to issue closure notices in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. However, in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for respondents-1 to 3 authorities, while appreciating the suggestions put forth by the learned Counsel for petitioner, suffices it to observe that the respondents-1 &2 shall take appropriate decision for implementation of said "Zero Pollution Technology" and if they found that any of the Distilleries companies named above are found in violation any of the conditions of the consent or any of the provisions of the statute or Rulings of the Courts, the respondents-1, 2 & 3 are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off.