JUDGMENT : Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. It is brought to our notice in the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Md. Y. Ahmed, Proprietor, 2nd Respondent that it is not APY Pharma but Pristine Life Science having an industry located at Singtam. Thus, necessary amendments may be made in the cause title. Accordingly, it is ordered that the word “APY Pharma” be replaced by “Pristine Life Science”, and Respondent No. 2 be addressed as Proprietor of “Pristine Life Science”, instead of Managing Director “APY Pharma” etc. 2. Mr. D. Sreenivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent submits that this petition filed by Mr. A. Halim is not maintainable as the Respondent No.2 is the tenant of Mr. A Halim’s wife, Mrs. Ruth Karthak Lepchani. It is submitted that the Petition is filed to serve his private interest and not in the public interest. It is further contended that it is well settled that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is maintainable only wherein the petitioner is not an interested person before the Court. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner, Mr. A. Halim, is that on account of the use of contaminated/dirty water from “jhora”/drainage for the purpose of manufacturing pharmaceutical medicines/drugs has rendered the same unfit for human consumption, thereby endangering human lives. It is his further contention that the waste pharmaceutical medicines/drugs that comes out of the factory are dumped in the grounds/surroundings locality polluting the environment, ecology, and water, violating the right to life. 4. Mr. A Halim submits that he is interested for the welfare of the public because of the aforesaid reasons which creates health hazards. He further submits that dispute, if any, between his wife and the 2nd Respondent is subject matter of criminal jurisdiction and he would not be raising this issue in the present petition. 5. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 , the Supreme Court would lay down guidelines to maintain purity and sanctity in Public Interest Litigation. The Supreme Court held inter alia, that the Courts before entertaining PIL should ensure that PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury and that the Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing Public Interest Litigation. 6. The Supreme Court held inter alia, that the Courts before entertaining PIL should ensure that PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury and that the Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing Public Interest Litigation. 6. We have examined the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent as well as the Petitioner-in-person. In view of the admitted relationship of the land lady and tenant between Mr. A. Halim’s wife Ruth Karthak Lepchani and the 2nd Respondent we are of the considered view that Mr. A. Halim, who has already raised an important issue before this Court, may be discharged from the case as the Petitioner-in-person but as an important issue relating to discharge of effluents by the Industry has been raised, this Court would continue to examine the same under its Public Interest Litigation Jurisdiction. Accordingly, the case be re-titled as “in re: discharge of effluents by Pharma companies situated at Singtam”. 7. The Registry is directed to make necessary amendments accordingly. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae has filed her report dated 21.02.2018. She reports that :- 1. “That on visiting pharma industries located in the East District of Sikkim and found that all the units have installed Primary Effluent Treatments Plants and the same were found to be functional. 2. I found that the treated water is being used for gardening purpose and are not discharged in streams/rivers. 3. I also found that the Solid Waste are collected in air tight plastic containers and shipped out side Sikkim i.e., Haldia in West Bengal. 4. I found that Pharma Companies employ a large number of workers in their production area. The workers who work in the production area are required to wear special suits. 5. I found that the suits worn by workers in the production are given by most of the pharma units to local laundries for washing. 6. As per the information provided by the State Pollution Control Board, Sikkim only the M/s Teesta Impex Industrial Laundry, Mamring and M/s Sharmila Enterprise were issued consent to operate by the State Pollution Control Board, Sikkim for the period 2016-17. However, even these two laundries have not renewed their Consent to Operate Certificates for the year 2017-18 and are operating without the same. 7. However, even these two laundries have not renewed their Consent to Operate Certificates for the year 2017-18 and are operating without the same. 7. I further found that there are other laundries who serve the pharma units but none of them have obtained consent to Establish and are Operating in violation of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The said laundries are: (i) M/s Rangeet Enterprise Tarpin Block, Rorathang. (ii) Shri Ram Sharma, Majhitar, Rangpo. (iii) Sparkle Laundry, Arithang, Gangtok. (iv) Shirstika Enterprises Mamring, South Sikkim. 8. As per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 326 and industrial unit which requires consent to operate must install a fully functional Primary Effluent Treatment Plant and in failure thereof the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has directed the State Pollution Control Board to stop such units from functioning. In the light of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the laundries functioning in violation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are liable to be closed down. 9. I also gathered from the State Pollution Control Board, Sikkim that the State of Sikkim has not taken any step till date to establish Common Effluent Treatment Plants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 326 has directed all the state govts. To establish Common Effluent Treatment Plants within three years from Feb., 2017.” 9. In view of the same the State Pollution Control Board, Sikkim is directed to forthwith examine all the issues raised in the Petition filed by Mr. A Halim as well as the report by the learned Amicus Curiae and submit a comprehensive report in respect of all the issues before the next date of hearing. 10. Call on 18.04.2018.