- (1.) Heard Sri Dev Brat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Devesh Pathak, learned counsel representing U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow.
(2.) Sri Devesh Pathak, learned counsel for the respondentsPollution Control Board at the very beginning raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners have statutory alternative remedy for filing an appeal under Section 31 of 1981 Act, but learned counsel for the petitioners in response to the said objection submitted that in case of violation of principles of natural justice availability of alternative remedy may not be an absolute bar and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in, 1998 8 SCC 1. According to the learned Counsel, in the above case, Supreme Court has laid down three grounds wherein the Court may not relegate the petitioners for availing alternative remedy, firstly where there is violation of principles of natural justice, secondly where the order impugned in the petition is without jurisdiction and thirdly where it is a case of enforcement of any fundamental rights. He thus submitted that the Court may hear the matter on merits. We have in such situation proceeded to hear the matter on merits.
(3.) Since the original record is before us, therefore, we feel that there is no necessity to require the counter affidavit and on the basis of the pleadings in the writ petition and the material placed along with the writ petition as also the original record, we have proceeded to hear the matter finally on merits. We are dealing with the original record of petitioner No.1 and from the records of other four petitioners, we have noticed that they are similar and therefore, a reference to one would be enough.;