JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioners assert to be residents of the Ambattuparambil area in Vadakkenchery, neighbouring a rice mill by name 'M/s. Jayabharath Modern Rice Mill'. They say that apart from the word 'Modern' that appears in the name, the said rice mill is not provided with any modern pollution fighting machinery or techniques and that they are causing great pollution, both air and water, in the whole neighbourhood. The petitioners have, therefore, filed this writ petition seeking directions to the Pollution Control Board to ensure that action is taken against the 3rd respondent, which is the said rice mill, not to cause any act of pollution in the area. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. G. Keerthivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri. Sreelal Warrier, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 4. 3. Even though there are several allegations made by the petitioners relating to the pollution caused by the 3rd respondent in this case, I do not think that it will be possible for this Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to delve into it in detail and consider the same exhaustively and affirmatively one way or other, in view of the fact that such resolution would depend upon consideration of disputed questions of fact. 4. I am deeply in recognition that my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is barricaded to large extent while making consideration of disputations essentially in the realm of facts and that will be the best left to the authorities and experts in the field to cause proper enquiry and to take such measures as would be warranted in the circumstances. 5. I notice that as per the interim orders of this Court, the Pollution Control Board has already placed on record two reports, wherein they have virtually said that the 3rd respondent has not been operating necessary effluent treatment plants and other measures for fighting and controlling pollution satisfactorily and effectively. However, these reports are of the year 2011 and 2012. It is possible that things have now changed and Sri. However, these reports are of the year 2011 and 2012. It is possible that things have now changed and Sri. Sreelal Warrier vehemently asserts that all the essential pollution fighting measures and equipments are functional in the 3rd respondent rice mill and that no pollution is now being caused, contrary to the assertions of the petitioners. 6. Sri. G. Keerthivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, refutes this strongly and says that during monsoon, the situation is far worse because the rice mill is situated on an elevated terrain and that water would flow from it naturally to lower areas. He says that even though Sri. Sreelal Warrier may be right in his submission that all the measures and equipments are installed in the mill, sufficient pollution abatement has not been obtained in spite of such measures. 7. I have considered the rival submissions at the bar. I am of the view that whatever be the nature of the contest between the parties, it is the primary and statutory duty of the Pollution Control Board to ensure that citizens are not prejudiced on account of pollution. This is the singular obligation of the Pollution Control Board and even assuming that there are no complaints raised against such pollution, it is incumbent upon then to act, once they obtain cognizance that pollution is on account of industrial or such other activity. Needless, therefore, to say, if any complaint is made before them, their obligation to act would be much more imperative. 8. In such view of the matter and since I am certain in my opinion that the competent Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board is obligated in terms of the statute to cause continuous monitoring and on an over all observance of the activities of the 3rd respondent as in the case of any other industry that is capable of pollution, I deem it appropriate to order this writ petition since I do not think that anyone would be benefited by this writ petition continuing on the files of this Court ad infinitum. 9. 9. For the reasons stated above and for the circumstances that I have noticed, I direct the respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the 3rd respondent-rice mill is continuing its operations only in terms of the explicit requirements contained under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act and Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act and that all the conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board in their consent to operate, implicitly and without violation. Obviously, if there is any contravention at the hands of the 3rd respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are duty bound to take such action to ensure that pollution is abated immediately without even having to wait for a formal complaint from the petitioners. The petitioners, of course, are also at liberty to bring to the notice of the respondents 1 and 2 any cause of concern relating to pollution and any instance of violation by the 3rd respondent of the terms of the consent to operate and in such circumstances, obviously, the respondents 1 and 2 shall remain obligated to take immediate action to ensure that all such transgressions are immediately stopped and pollution completely abated. 10. This writ petition is thus ordered. All the interim orders issued earlier will stand closed in terms of the judgment.