ORDER Heard Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2, the State Pollution Control Board. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the show-cause notice issued under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short “the Act, 1974”) and refusal of consent to operate the petitioner-hotel at Annexure-5. The case of the writ petitioner is that he is a hotelier and operating since 2003 and discharging sewage to the public sewage and now connected to Sewage Treatment Plant at Mangalaghat and discharging the sewage in conformity with the standard prescribed under Schedule –VI of the Environment (Protection) Rules applicable to the Hotel Industry. The refusal to grant consent to the petitioner in spite of the required fee paid by him could not have been made by the State Pollution Control Board. Consequently, he could not have been directed to show-cause to close his hotel in question by the State Pollution Control Board at Annexure-5. The aforesaid has been countered by the State Pollution Control Board indicating therein that the hotel of the petitioner has been discharging sewage not in conformity with the standard prescribed by the State Pollution Control Board by a Notification at Annexure-A/1 and also operating the hotel without the order of consent, as such, there was no infirmity in the show-cause issued. In such premises, it has been averred that this writ petition is devoid of merit. Rejoinder to the aforesaid counter affidavit has been filed indicating therein that the aforesaid Notification of the State Pollution Control Board has no application to the present case. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is a hotelier, admittedly discharging sewage to a Sewage Treatment Plant located at Mangalaghat run by the Odisha Sewage Board and in the sample taken during pendency of this writ petition in pursuance of the consent of both the parties with the BOD level is 90, the same is in conformity with the general standard prescribed. The Notification relied upon by the State Pollution Control Board relates to discharge of public sewage to the sewage to the sewage plant located at Bankimuhan. The Notification relied upon by the State Pollution Control Board relates to discharge of public sewage to the sewage to the sewage plant located at Bankimuhan. There being no other notification, the refusal of consent for violation of Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is without any substance and, as such, the same needs to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State Pollution Control Board though does not dispute the fact that the petitioner discharging sewage to a Public Sewage Treatment Plant, but submits that since the petitioner is discharging polluting sewage as the same is discharged beyond the prescribed standard, the refusal of consent cannot be found fault with. He further submits that the petitioner cannot run his hotel without consent. Since the hotel of the petitioner was running without consent, he has no right to continue the same and, therefore, this writ petition filed challenging the same is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. A consent to operate a hotel from the State Pollution Control Board under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is sine-qua-non. Admittedly, the petitioner-hotel was allowed to operate. The petitioner-hotel has not obtained the same, but the petitioner-hotel was allowed to operate. The petitioner-hotel has also discharging the sewage to a public sewage system. The sewage discharged by the petitioner-hotel, as seen from the analysis report is within the standard prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. But, it is not in dispute that the State Pollution Control Board can prescribe a stringent standard then prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State Pollution Control Board that in respect of hotels at Puri, the State Pollution Control Board had prescribed a standard by publishing a public notice under Annexure-B/1 to the counter affidavit. The same has been disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the said standard is at all applicable to the petitioner-hotel, inasmuch as the petitioner-hotel is discharging sewage not to Bankimuhan, but to Mangalaghat, in such premises, he submits, the refusal to grant consent to the petitioner-hotel was unjust and improper. The same has been disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the said standard is at all applicable to the petitioner-hotel, inasmuch as the petitioner-hotel is discharging sewage not to Bankimuhan, but to Mangalaghat, in such premises, he submits, the refusal to grant consent to the petitioner-hotel was unjust and improper. Such contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner appears to have force, inasmuch as in the aforesaid notification, the stringent standard prescribed is relatable to the hotels which are discharging sewage to public sewage system at Bankimuhan, but cannot be made applicable to the petitioner-hotel who admittedly connected his sewage system to another public sewage system at Mangalaghat and no specific standard has been prescribed according to the capacity of the STP. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner-hotel, prima-facie, has violated the norms of the State Pollution Control Board. The refusal of consent on the aforesaid ground, therefore, cannot be sustained. But, the petitioner-hotel having no consent to operate, the show-cause notice issued under Annexure-5 cannot be said to be illegal. In such premises, it cannot be said that the petitioner has a indefeasible right to run his hotel without consent. However, the petitioner having made out a case that he has not violated the norms as per the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 inasmuch the sewage discharged by the petitioner-hotel to a public sewage system within the general standard prescribed in the said Act, but his consent has been refused, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the State Pollution Control Board to take a decision on the question of consent of the petitioner-hotel afresh within two months of receipt of this order and till a decision in this regard is taken, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner-hotel in pursuance of the show-cause notice at Annexure-5. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Petition disposed of.