JUDGMENT : Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Special P.P., Department of Mines, Government of Bihar and Bihar State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). 2. The challenge in the writ petitions is to the decision of the Board by which they have taken a decision that all existing brick kiln units have to shift to Cleaner Technology by 31.08.2018 and without that, their license shall not be renewed, and with regard to new license also the same decision applies. However, the consideration in the present case is restricted to the decision of the Board only with regard to the pre-existing brick kiln units. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, has granted a moratorium of two years to change to Cleaner Technology, but the Board has given time only till 31.08.2018, which is impractical and also arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners do not oppose the direction to convert to Cleaner Technology but at the same time, the practical aspect cannot be lost sight of, as, for changing the entire technology to Cleaner Technology from pre-existing coal based technology cannot be done within a span of a few months. It was submitted that the same having financial implications, the authorities are required to take a pragmatic view as the petitioners also are depending for livelihood on such units. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since over a year, the exercise was undertaken and on 11.10.2017, there was a notification directing for taking affidavits from the operators that by 31.08.2018, they would change over to Cleaner Technology. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have also given such undertaking by way of an affidavit. 5. The attention of the Court was further drawn to the notification dated 15.10.2018 of the Board which indicates that such units which had given affidavit that they would shift to Cleaner Technology by 31.08.2018, they would not be given any further Consent to Operate (C.T.O.) and Consent to Establishment (C.T.E.). However, a further clause indicates that such units which had not given the affidavit that they shall be converting to Cleaner Technology by 31.08.2018, in those cases, the time for doing so was extended till 31.08.2019. However, a further clause indicates that such units which had not given the affidavit that they shall be converting to Cleaner Technology by 31.08.2018, in those cases, the time for doing so was extended till 31.08.2019. It was, thus, submitted that in the present case, all the petitioners have been given an affidavit/undertaking to shift to Cleaner Technology latest by 31.08.2018. They are bound to do so as per their own commitment and, thus, the decision not go give them C.T.O. beyond 31.08.2018, without use of Cleaner Technology is justified. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court, before coming on the merits, would indicate that in principle, there cannot be any exception to the decision of the Board and the authorities for ensuring that to protect the environment such measure was required as brick klin units are a cause of major concern towards all the atmospheric pollution. Thus, the Court finds the decision of the Board with regard to the requirement to shifting to Cleaner Technology to be correct, fair and in fact both required and justified. 7. However, coming to the main issue involved in the present writ applications with regard to cut off date, the Court finds that in view of the decision taken by the Board itself, as contained in the notification no. 33 dated 15.10.2018, copy of which has been brought in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, creation of two groups among the pre-existing units is arbitrary and unsustainable. The said distinction relates to not issuing of a C.T.O to such pre-existing units which have given an undertaking/affidavit that by 31.08.2018 they would be shifting to Cleaner Technology, whereas, with regard to pre-existing units, which had not given such undertaking/affidavit, the cut off date is 31.08.2019. The Court finds that the units which had fallen in line and which had given such undertaking/affidavit have in fact been made into a separate class, and have been visited with penal consequences as compared to the group which had not given any undertaking/affidavit, in whose case, they have been given a premium of further one year to convert to Cleaner Technology. This, in the considered opinion of the Court is not sustainable, being both disciminatory and without any sound rationale. This, in the considered opinion of the Court is not sustainable, being both disciminatory and without any sound rationale. Had the Board not taken a decision to give the benefit beyond 31.8.2019, in case of all pre-existing units, the Court would not have had any occasion to interfere. However, as has been indicated above, giving premium to pre-existing units who have chosen not to give undertaking for shifting to Cleaner Technology beyond 31.08.2018, by giving them further one year time till 31.08.2019, has to be interfered with as there has to be one single category/ group for all pre-existing units. As the Board itself has taken a decision to grant time till 31.08.2019, which the Court also feels is reasonable, the direction not to issue C.T.O. to pre-existing units, which have given undertaking/affidavit that they shall shift to Cleaner Technology by 31.08.2018, stands quashed. All preexisting units, uniformally without any distinction, shall be required now to change to Cleaner Technology latest by 31.08.2019. The Court makes it clear that such time is more than sufficient and is basically in public interest and for safeguarding further pollution to the atmosphere. The Court also records that the petitioners have specifically undertaken that they would shift to Cleaner Technology latest by 31.08.2019. 8. The writ petitions stand allowed in the aforementioned terms.