DEVARAJ MUDALIAR RICE MILL Vs. MEMBER SECRETARY MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein has challenged a notice purportedly issued in exercise of the power under S. 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. He has raised certain jurisdictional facts to show that the alleged effluence is not a trade effluence or discharge of sewage. He has submitted that in the absence of a preliminary determination of these facts, there cannot exist any cause for a notice under S. 25 of the Act. THE scheme of the law however is one under which there is a provision for enquiry, a procedure therefor and appeal against any order passed under S. 25 of the Act. THE alternative remedy in a situation like this may be a ground to hold that the petitioner should be asked first to exhaust the internal remedy and then come to this Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has however submitted that before exercise of that jurisdiction, grounds must be found to exist and if the petitioner is in a position to demonstrate that such facts do not exist, alternative remedy should not be a bar to the maintainability of the instant writ petition.