JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board directing the closure of the petitioner company, as also imposing interim environmental damage compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Further relief has also been sought to set aside the notice of intention to revoke (withdraw) consent namely CCA No. AWH95670 & H 108228 dated 13.06.2023. 2. Pressing the relief sought in the writ petition, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta for the petitioner that the closure order suffers from the vice of natural justice. No show-cause notice at all has been issued to the petitioner before passing the closure order based on inspection of the industry, being run by the petitioner, on 07.06.2023. It is further argued that the closure order has been passed in violation of the procedure prescribed in the statutory provision of The Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 (in short as ‘the Act, 1986) read with the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (in short as ‘the Rules, 1986). The respondent - Gujarat Pollution Control Board (in short as ‘the Board’) has exceeded its jurisdiction under section 5 of the Act, 1986, inasmuch as, it has no authority to impose penalty. It was further argued that the closure order has been passed by an Authority who is not vested with the jurisdiction to pass such order. Section 23 of the Act, 1986 provided that the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette, subject to such conditions and limitations, as may be specified in the notification, may confer such affairs, powers and functions under the Act as it may deem fit necessary or expedient to any Officer, State Government, or any authority. Section 3 sub-section (1) empowers the Central Government to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. 3. It was contended that the powers conferred on the Central Government to take measures as prescribed in subsection (2) of Section 3 to achieve the purpose of the Act, 1986, as per the case of the respondent Board itself has been conferred on the Chairman of the Board. The closure order, however, has been passed by the Member Secretary, Gujarat Pollution Control Board. The closure order, however, has been passed by the Member Secretary, Gujarat Pollution Control Board. Sub-delegation of the powers conferred upon the Chairman Board was not permissible and, as such, the order passed by the Member Secretary, Gujarat Pollution Control Board suffers from the lack of jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 4. On the preliminary objections raised by the respondent with regard to maintainability of the writ petition, in view of the alternative remedy under section 5(a) of the Act, 1986 of appeal to National Green Tribunal, it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that alternative statutory remedy cannot be treated as a bar to exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in three circumstances : - (i) Whether a writ petition has been filed for enforcement of the fundamental rights ; (ii) Whether there has been violation of principles of natural justice; (iii) Whether order of proceeding are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of the Act is challenge.” 5. The reference has been made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation versus Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 relied and referred in a recent decision in Radha Krishan Industries versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 771 . The principle of law laid down therein have been placed before us, paragraph 27 of which is relevant to be extracted hereinunder : - “27. The principles of law which emerge are that : 27.1 The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; 27.2 The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3 Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; 27.4 An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; 27.5 When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and 27.6 In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” 6. Another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Advocate Bar Association and another v. Union of India & Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 639 as been relied upon to assert that the Apex Court while upholding the vires of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 has categorically held that the power of judicial review under Article 226, 227 and 32 of the Constitution of India being part of the basis structure of our Constitution is inviolable. The powers vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence cannot be ousted by virtue of Section 14 and 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The powers vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence cannot be ousted by virtue of Section 14 and 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Taking note of the decisions of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar versus Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 and Whirlpool Corporation versus Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 , it was held therein that the National Green Tribunal is within the purview of the Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India jurisdiction of the High Courts. 7. The submission is that the closure order suffers from both on account of the violation of the principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner, thus, cannot be non-suited on the ground of availability of the alternative statutory remedy. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kethos Tiles Pvt. Ltd. versus Gujarat Pollution Control Board, dated 28.05.2020 in Special Civil Application No. 6098 of 2020 has been placed before us to assert that this Court had set aside the closure order and the order to revoke the consent accepting the plea of the petitioner therein that the orders were without jurisdiction and no opportunity of hearing was given to the writ petitioner therein. The contention is that the closure order is required to be quashed and the matter is to be sent back for fresh consideration providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Limited versus Central Pollution Control Board through Its Chairman, dated 05.07.2019 in W.P. (C) 7167 and CM Nos. 29841/2019, 29842/2019 & 29843/2019 to assert that it was noted therein that the Pollution Control Board has no jurisdiction to levy any compensation under Section 5 of the Act, 1986. 9. In order to demonstrate that the closure order suffers from the violation of the principle of natural justice, the factual position placed before us, is to be noted herein. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehta for the petitioner that a surprise inspection of the industry being run by the petitioner company was made on 07.06.2023. 9. In order to demonstrate that the closure order suffers from the violation of the principle of natural justice, the factual position placed before us, is to be noted herein. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehta for the petitioner that a surprise inspection of the industry being run by the petitioner company was made on 07.06.2023. On the inspection report provided to the petitioner, wherein several shortcomings were reported, a compliance report with all clarifications supporting documents, permissions, bills, manifests, records and relevant details was submitted by the petitioner on 11.06.2023. It is submitted that the explanation offered by the petitioner in the compliance report was neither noted nor dealt with and has been rejected in only one line saying that it is not acceptable. One line rejection statement in the closure order is proof of the denial of opportunity by the Board, resulting in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the closure order has been passed on the same day i.e. on 12.06.2023, on which the compliance was submitted by the petitioner. Further on the next date i.e. 13.06.2023, the notice of intention to revoke the consent has been served giving only seven days’ time to the petitioner to furnish their explanation. Reply to the said notice has also been furnished by the petitioner, however, no final decision has been taken till date. It is thus, argued that the officer of the respondent Board has preceded with predetermined mind to close the unit causing irreparable loss to the petitioner. 10. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Board, in rebuttal, submits that looking to the serious nature of the violations by the petitioner unit, it was incumbent to pass closure order immediately, so as to avoid any further damage to the environment. Hazardous waste material has been released by the petitioner unit. Three days’ time was given to the petitioner to the respond to the irregularities found. On the response given by the petitioner vide communication dated 11.06.2023, the competent authority considering the submissions of the petitioner in exercise of the power under section (5) of the Act, 1986 issued the order for immediate closure of the unit on 12.06.2023. Three days’ time was given to the petitioner to the respond to the irregularities found. On the response given by the petitioner vide communication dated 11.06.2023, the competent authority considering the submissions of the petitioner in exercise of the power under section (5) of the Act, 1986 issued the order for immediate closure of the unit on 12.06.2023. As to the maintainability of the writ petition, it was vehemently argued that in view of the availability of the statutory alternative remedy, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. The plea of breach of principle of natural justice is termed as ornamental, inasmuch as, the violations with regard to illegal movement and discharge of hazardous waste noticed during the inspection, were intimated to the petitioner and he was called upon to provide explanation with regard to the same. As per own case of the petitioner, he submitted reply to the notice issued after inspection on 11.06.2023 and the order of closure was passed on 12.06.2023, there is, thus, no question of denial of opportunity of hearing. As regard the intention to revoke consent consolidation, consent and authorization (CCA) dated 13.06.2023, it was contended that 7 days’ time was granted to the petitioner to show cause. Sufficient opportunity has, thus, been provided to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be allowed to maintain the writ petition seeking quashing of the closure order on the ground that it is the case of violation of principles of natural justice. 11. On the plea of lack of jurisdiction in issuance of the closure order dated 12.06.2023, a copy of the office order dated 26.10.2020 issued by the Chairman, Gujarat Pollution Control Board has been placed before us to submit that direction has been given therein to the Member Secretary to issue orders passed by the competent authority. The closure order containing the directions therein was issued by the Member Secretary in compliance of the order passed by the competent authority, i.e. Chairman, Gujarat Pollution Control Board on the file. Issuance of the closure order by the Member Secretary under the directions of the Chairman, Pollution Control Board, cannot be said to suffer from vice of jurisdiction. 12. About the plea of justifiability to impose penalty, it was argued that the said issue can very well be agitated before the Tribunal in statutory appeal. Issuance of the closure order by the Member Secretary under the directions of the Chairman, Pollution Control Board, cannot be said to suffer from vice of jurisdiction. 12. About the plea of justifiability to impose penalty, it was argued that the said issue can very well be agitated before the Tribunal in statutory appeal. The submission is thus, that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of alternative statutory remedy. 13. It was submitted that even otherwise, the closure order is an interim order and can be revoked subject to compliances made by the petitioner. Till date, there is no revocation of the consent under CCA by the respondent. It is still permitted to the petitioner to apply to the respondent Board for revocation of the closure order by taking remedial measures. 14. Taking note of the above submission of the learned counsels for the parties, we may record that Section 5 of the Act, 1986 empowers the Central Government to issue directions in writing to any person, officer or any authority, including the power to direct for (a) the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process; or, (b) stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other service. 15. The powers conferred on the Central Government to take measures for the purpose of protection and improvement of quality of environmental and prevention control and abatement, Environment Pollution under section 3 of the Act, 1986 has been delegated to the Chairman, Gujarat Pollution Control Boards, under Section 5 read with Section 23 of the Act, 1986. 16. The closure order dated 12.06.2023 is preceded by the inspection of the industrial unit of the petitioner company and intimation of the violations along with the inspection report to the petitioner giving three days’ time to give explanation was sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice. 17. Amongst various violations reported in the inspection report, one is with respect to the high quantity of spent HCL brought by the Unit without obtaining Rule 9 permission. 17. Amongst various violations reported in the inspection report, one is with respect to the high quantity of spent HCL brought by the Unit without obtaining Rule 9 permission. It is reported that the industrial unit was discharging highly acidic waste, spent acid in the underground drainage of GIDC drain, Rule 9 of the Hazardous and other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016, framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the Section 6, 8 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, prohibits utilization of hazardous and other waste, as a resources or after pre-processing either for co-process or for any other use, without obtaining authorization from the State Pollution Control Board, except on the basis of standard operating procedure in respect of waste, which has to be carried out only after obtaining authorization on the basis of standard operating procedure or guidelines provided by the Central Pollution Control Board. 18. Rule 4 of the Rules 2016 casts responsibility on the occupier for management of hazardous and other waste. It provides that the occupier shall be responsible for safe and environmentally sound management of hazardous and other waste. The occupier who intends to get its hazardous and other wastes treated and disposed of by the operator of a treatment, storage and disposal facility shall give to the operator of that facility, such specific information as may be needed for safe storage and disposal. 19. Rule 4(5) of the rules of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 further provides that, in case, where the Central Government is of the opinion that in view of the likelihood of the grave injury to the environment, it is not expedient to provide an opportunity to file objections against the proposed direction, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, issue directions without providing such an opportunity. 20. Having noted the above provisions, we may further record that there is categorical indication in the inspection report dated 07.06.2023 of the violations, which are in the nature of causing grave injury to the environment. Having found so, no illegality can be attached to the decision of the respondent Board in passing the closure order giving three days’ time to petitioner to furnish explanation. 21. Having found so, no illegality can be attached to the decision of the respondent Board in passing the closure order giving three days’ time to petitioner to furnish explanation. 21. The plea of lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice in passing the closure order could not be substantiated by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner before us, so as to invoke extraordinary discretionary power conferred upon this Court, even in a case of availability of statutory alternative remedy. 22. There is effective statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner in the shape of Appeal under section 5(a) of the Act, 1986 before the National Green Tribunal. All issues pertaining to the lack of jurisdiction or denial of opportunity of furnishing explanation or lack of jurisdiction imposing penalty can very well raised before the Tribunal, which would be in a better position to adjudicate after making factual inquiry. We, therefore, do not find it a fit case to interfere. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent Board with regard to the maintainability of the instant writ petition is hereby sustained. 23. However, before parting with the case, we may note the admitted fact that till date consent (CCA) has not been revoked by the respondent board in continuation of the showcause notice dated 13.06.2023. The closure order is a temporary measure which can be revoked, in case, the petitioner takes and report remedial measures. It is, thus, kept open for the petitioner to approach the respondent Board with the plea to take appropriate remedial measures. In such a situation, it would be open for the respondent board to pass appropriate orders. It goes without saying that the respondent board shall be under obligation to take a decision independently without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 24. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is DISMISSED on the ground of alternative remedy. Notice is discharged.