- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. The petitioner filed 12 appeals against as sessment orders passed by the Cess Officer, U. P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow relating to period 1994 to 2007. The said appeals were preferred on the same day, namely, 15. 10. 2007 under Section 13 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Rule 9 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). The limitation for filing appeal was only thirty days from the date of communication of order of assessment. The power to condone delay in filing appeal is also limited upto 45 days. Thus all the said appeals, being filed beyond limitation, have been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 15. 11. 2007. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the appellate order dated 15. 11. 2007 (Anenxure 1 to the writ petition ). Since in the meantime recovery proceedings had also been initiated, it has also sought a writ of certiorari for quashing various assessment orders passed by respondent No. 4 between 1994 to 2007 whereagainst his appeals have been dismissed vide order dated 15. 11. 2007 and also recovery citation dated 6. 10. 2007. He has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 4 to decide his objections against the assessment orders and refrain from making any recovery from the petitioner pur suant to the impugned assessment orders as well as recovery certificate.
(2.) THE facts in brief, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the peti tioner is an industrial unit engaged in manufacture of bleaching earth which is used in refining edible oils. It consumes water for boiler feed, domestic purposes and processing. It is not disputed that the petitioner's industrial unit is liable to pay cess under the Act. It appears that he did not pay cess regularly between 1994 to 2006 and, therefore, assessment orders were passed by respondent No. 4, the first being dated 1. 3. 1994 and thereafter on various dates, till 26. 2. 2007, making demand of cess from the petitioner. THE details of various assessment orders, period and amount of assessment of cess is as under:- S. No. 1. 2.
(3.) ;