JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State Pollution Control Board. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner no. 1- the Hotel Association of Puri and petitioner no. 2- the Proprietor of Hotel Chandrabindu Niketan who is a member of the said Association, challenging the issuance of show cause notices to many of its members, by the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha – Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the “Water Act”) asking them to show cause as to why their establishments shall not be closed since they are operating the same without consent to operate, in violation of Section 25 of the Water Act and also issuing notices of closure and seizure of the units of some of its members. 3. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that most of the members of the petitioner Association have established their hotels, lodging house, restaurants, etc. at Puri prior to the year 1983 but some of them after the year 1986. The members of the Association are discharging the sewage/trade effluent to the public sewer of the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as “Orissa Sewerage Board”) leading to the end point, sewage treatment plant of Orissa Sewerage Board, located at Mangalaghat, Puri and some of them who are not connected to the said public sewer, discharging the same to the municipal drain. No standard of treatment of the sewage and trade effluent which are discharged to the public drain or public sewer is prescribed under the Water Act though the State Pollution Control Board is authorized under the Water Act to lay such standard. No standard of treatment of the sewage and trade effluent which are discharged to the public drain or public sewer is prescribed under the Water Act though the State Pollution Control Board is authorized under the Water Act to lay such standard. However, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which came into force to protect the environmental quality due to increasing pollution, loss of vegetal cover and biological diversity defines the environment includes water, air and land and environmental pollutants as solid, liquid or gaseous substances present in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to the environment and environmental pollution means the presence in the environment of any environmental pollutant, so also the said Act under Section 3 ;empowers the Central Government to lay down the standard for emission and discharge of environmental pollutants from various sources whatsoever. Accordingly, the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) was framed prescribing the standard for emission or discharge of environmental pollutant in Rule – 3. Rule 3(1) of the Rules prescribes the standard for emission or discharge of environmental pollutant from the industries, operation or process and specified in Schedules I to IV, but Rules 3(2) empowers the Central Board and state Board to specify more stringent standards than those provided in Schedule I to IV in respect of any specific industry, operation, process depending upon the quality of the recipient system and after recording reasons, therefor in writing and Rule 3(A) which came into force of the first day of January, 1994, stipulating emission or discharge of environment pollutant from the industries, operation, process other than those industries, operation or process for which standards have been specified in the Schedule I, shall not exceed the relevant parameters and standard specified in Schedule VI, notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Rules (1) and (2). While the matter stood thus, the State Pollution Control Board in the year 1997, came out with a Notification No. 1105 dated 03.02.1997 vide Annexure-5 in respect of Hotels, Lodging Houses and commercial establishment at Puri indicating therein that the Hotels/Lodging Houses and other commercial institutions are required to obtain prior consent of the State Pollution Control Board both to establish and to operate asking them to apply for consent to the State Pollution Control Board within 30 days from the date of publication of the said notice which was published in the Odia Daily ‘Dharitri’ on 10.02.1997 prescribing standard for disposal of sewage/trade effluent to sewer/open drain leading to Banki Muhan with BOD 3 days at 27 degree centigrade 75mg/liter, so also issued a notice on 19.06.1998 vide Annexure-3 inviting attention of all the hotels/lodging houses in the State of Odisha 20000 liters of water or mix per day (100 persons @ 200 liters per day) to apply for consent of the State Pollution Control Board both to establish and to operate. But under the said Rules in Schedule I Entry No. 39 for hotel industries with 20 bed rooms with effect from 04.11.2009 effluent standard of BOD with 3 days in 27 degree centigrade which are discharged to inland surface water 30 mg/liter and which are discharged on land for irrigation 100 mg/liter has been prescribed with the stipulation that if the effluent is discharged into a municipal sewer leading to a sewage treatment plant, the hotel or restaurant or banquet hall as the case may be shall provide a proper oil and grease trap for effluent arising from its kitchen and laundry and shall have to comply with the general standard for discharge of environmental pollutant Part A effluent notified under Schedule VI. In Schedule VI in Entry No. 12 the standard of the effluent BOD which are discharged to public sewer for hotel industries as 350 mg/liter maximum at 5 days at 20 degree centigrade. Besides the same, no other notification is there prescribing the standard of effluent to be discharged by the State Pollution Control Board for hotel industries. In the Act or the Rules nothing has been provided with regard to mechanized sewage treatment plant by the establishment. Besides the same, no other notification is there prescribing the standard of effluent to be discharged by the State Pollution Control Board for hotel industries. In the Act or the Rules nothing has been provided with regard to mechanized sewage treatment plant by the establishment. The hotel establishments are also discharging their sewage/trade effluent to the public sewage system after the required treatment conforming to the standard of the effluent particularly the BOD prescribed under the Rules, but in recent past the State Pollution Control Board insisted for consent to operate and refused the consent to operate to many of the members of the petitioner Association as allegedly they have not conformed to the standard of the effluent discharge of the sewage prescribed in the Notification at Annexure-5, by establishing individual sewage treatment plant for treatment of sewage to conform the standard of effluent discharge as prescribed in the aforesaid Notification. In a high level meeting of the hoteliers, Government officials of Urban Development, Orissa Sewerage Board and other related departments as well as the State Pollution Control Board, the hoteliers have been asked to discharge the sewage conforming to the standard as notified at Annexure-5 vide resolution at Annexure-6 and have refused consent to operate to many of its member, and indiscriminately issued notices to show cause of closure and also directed for closure under Section 33-A of the Water Act. The prescription of the aforesaid standard of discharge of trade effluent being contrary to the standard prescribed in the Rules, the State Pollution Control Board could not have refused the consent and thereafter issued the notice of closure of show cause to closure in exercise of power under Section 33-A of the Water Act. Against such illegal and arbitrary action of the State Pollution Control Board and appeal lies under the water Act, but there has been no such appellate authority. Against such illegal and arbitrary action of the State Pollution Control Board and appeal lies under the water Act, but there has been no such appellate authority. The petitioner Association thus, has filed this writ petition challenging such action of the State Pollution Control Board with prayer to quash the resolution at Annexure-6 to bring down the BOD level of the sewage to 75 mg/liter, restrain the State Pollution Control Board from refusing to pass the order of consent to operate till and appellate authority is constituted for the purpose and direct the Government to constitute the appellate authority, grant extension of time for two months more to the owners of the hotels to have their own effluent treatment plant, direct the State Pollution Control Board to consider their case for consent to operate, impose condition for installation of such treatment plant instead of straightaway refusing the consent to operate and issuing the closure notice under Section 33 –A of the Water Act, so also the State Pollution Control Board to adhere the norms prescribed under the Rules in respect of trade effluent BOD as prescribed under Schedule VI of the Rules and not to insist for installation of STP as a condition precedent to grant consent and the discharge of trade effluent of BOD of 75 mg/liter or initiate any action for closure pursuant to refusal of any consent thereto. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Pollution Control Board-opposite party nos. 1 and 2 challenging maintainability of the writ petition in this Court in view of the fact that National Green Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “NGT”) is in seisin over the mater in O.A. No. 110 of 2013 and the petitioners have already appeared there and the NGT being the appropriate forum in view of the law laid down in the case of Almitra H. Patel and Another Vr. UOI and others (in W.P.(C) No. 888 of 1996) has given direction to the State Pollution Control Board to proceed against the industries and units operating without consent to establish and operate, so also it has been disputed that after prescription of a standard under the Rule, the notification of the State Pollution Control Board at Annexure-5 has become redundant. UOI and others (in W.P.(C) No. 888 of 1996) has given direction to the State Pollution Control Board to proceed against the industries and units operating without consent to establish and operate, so also it has been disputed that after prescription of a standard under the Rule, the notification of the State Pollution Control Board at Annexure-5 has become redundant. It is specifically averred that under Sub-rule 3(A) of the Rules, it is permissible to prescribe a stringent standard or lay down different standard for emission and discharge from different sources having regard to the quality and composition of the emission or discharge of the environment pollutant from such sources and as such the notice at Annexure-5 dated 10.02.1997 prescribing a stringent standard of emission and discharge under the Water Act for the hoteliers at Puri and insistence to adhere such standard of discharge of the effluent by installation of STP in consonance with law. Furthermore, it is averred that the end point sewage treatment plant at Puri is yet to be completed and many of the hoteliers of the petitioner Association are not discharging their sewage to the aforesaid network of the public sewage and some are located beyond the sewage network of the aforesaid public sewage. The sewage treatment plant is also not able to tolerate the load of effluent discharge from Puri town. Many of the members of the Association are also discharging the sewage with the BOD in the range 200-500 mg/liter which is more than the prescribed standard and as such insistence of installation of STP to ensure the discharge of the waste water confirming to the prescribed standard was for protection of the environment more so in order to avoid the overload/inadequacy of the treatment facilities at Mangalaghat. It has also been indicated in the counter affidavit that since many of the petitioner Association did not have any treatment facility and used to discharge the sewage/trade effluent to the public drain with the BOD in the range 200-500 Mg./liter as against the prescribed BOD 75 Mg./liter, the State Pollution Control Board is well within the jurisdiction to direct treatment of the sewage by installation of STP which has the scientific mechanism to bring down the BOD level. Furthermore, when many of the hotels at Puri did not apply for consent to operate, show cause notices were issued to them and the hoteliers who had applied for consent and installation of treatment facility is not progressed therein they have been extended time to install the same pending disposal of the consent. But who has not responded to the notices and applied for consent to operate have been issued show cause to close down their hotels and also closure notices have been issued to them and as such averments have been made to dismiss the writ petition more particularly when the National Green Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the NGT”) is seisin over the matter and the prayer of the petitioner Association is devoid of merit. 5. The opposite party no. 3 State has filed an affidavit indicating that all effective steps be taken to expedite the constitution of the appellate authority under the Water Act. 6. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner Association indicating that there being no material indicating recording of reasons to prescribe a stringent standard with regard to discharge of trade effluent by the hotel industries, as required under the law, the stringent standard for discharge of effluent was notified, the hotel industries at Puri are governed by the standard prescribed under Schedule VI of the Rules in respect of BOD which came into force on 24.11.2009 i.e. much after the Notification at Annexure-5. Furthermore, insistence of consent to operate all hotels and issuance of closure notices indiscriminately without taking into consideration the Notification at Annexure-3, having been challenged, as Annexure-3 speaks that consent to operate is required to be obtained by hotel industries with the capacity of occupation of 100 persons using 20000 liters of water per day, the standard of trade effluent discharge of BOD vide Annexure-5 for all hotels at Puri has become redundant. The capacity of the end point sewage treatment plant at Puri as averred in the counter and insistence of installation of the STP for treatment of trade effluent has also been disputed as some of the members of the petitioner Association have been granted connection to discharge the sewage to the said sewer. The capacity of the end point sewage treatment plant at Puri as averred in the counter and insistence of installation of the STP for treatment of trade effluent has also been disputed as some of the members of the petitioner Association have been granted connection to discharge the sewage to the said sewer. So also insistence of mechanized STP by the State Pollution Control Board has also been disputed as the same has been provided nowhere in the Act or Rules and the Act or Rules have not provided for effective treatment facility before discharging of the water to the drain or sewer. In the rejoinder affidavit, it has also been disputed that the NGT is seisin over the matter and the closure notices/show cause for closure were issued pursuant to direction of the NGT as the NGT had not directed to issue notices of closure indiscriminately which are operating without consent, rather, it directed that if some of the industries/units are specifically exempted under the Rules/relevant provisions of law or Notification, the operation thereof may not be stalled, and vide Notification at Annexure-3 hotels with 100 persons occupants using 20000 liters of water per day have been exempted obtaining order of consent from the State Pollution Control. The jurisdiction of the NGT to decide the dispute has also been disputed. 7. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners are members of hotel Association and all of them are hoteliers. They are aggrieved by the decision of the State Pollution Control Board-opposite party nos. 1 and 2 insisting them not to operate without the consent to operate as mandated under Section 25 of the Water Act. Some of them have already obtained the order of consent to operate. Orders of consent to operate of some of them are pending, but in some cases consent applied have been refused. Some of the members of the Association have also not applied for consent, but claimed exemption and as such they have challenged the closure notices issued to them under Section 33-A of the Water Act. They have also challenged the fixation of stringent standard of effluent discharge by the State Pollution Control Board under the Rules. Some of the members of the Association have also not applied for consent, but claimed exemption and as such they have challenged the closure notices issued to them under Section 33-A of the Water Act. They have also challenged the fixation of stringent standard of effluent discharge by the State Pollution Control Board under the Rules. It has been stated by them that since some of them have been connected to sewer of the Orissa Sewerage Board with end point sewage treatment plant at Mangalaghat, a different standard of effluent discharged is applicable to them then the stringent standard prescribed under the Rules. But many of them have not connected to the said sewer and connected to the municipal drain and some of them as alleged have not connected to municipal drain or the aforesaid sewer. From the aforesaid it appears that the cause of action is distinct and different for different individual members of the Association and each of them has independent cause of action. Therefore, this writ petition filed jointly through their Association seeking the relief is not maintainable. 8. In such view of the matter, even though in this case Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners has strenuously urged that this Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition notwithstanding existence of alternative remedy even if the same is speedy and efficacious inasmuch as appellate authority is not available to redress their grievance presently and also the NGT has no competency to decide such matter disputing the averments of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 – State Pollution Control Board with regard to jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition on the ground that the NGT is competent to decide and is seisin over the matter inasmuch as pursuant to the direction of the NGT closure notices have been issued, so also fixing of stringent standard and insistence of installation of stringent standard and insistence of installation of mechanized STP and refusal of consent to operate for non-installation of the same to be illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the Rules never empowers the Sate Pollution Control Board to prescribe for such STP and prescribe a different standard for the hoteliers then prescribed in the Rules and also insistence of consent to operate in spite of the exemption at Annexure-3, placing reliance on the Act and Rules and a number of authorities and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 State Pollution Control Board has controverted to the aforesaid submission drawing notice of the Court to different provisions and law, this Court does not think it fit to deal with the merit of such contentions. 9. In view of the aforesaid finding, this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner Association is not maintainable. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, individual members of the Association are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised, against the notice to closure or show cause to closure issued to them by the State Pollution Control Board. But in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. Petition dismissed.