IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 709 OF 2009 (ms) M/s Rana Stone Crusher Society and another. …………..Petitioners. Versus Uttarakhand Environment Conservation and Pollution Control Board, Uttarakhand through its Member Secretary. ……….Respondent. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for respondent. 21st May, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. By means of present writ petitioner, the petitioner is challenging the notice dated 13.4.2007 issued by the respondent under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention And Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioner is aggrieved by the closure of its industry. According to the Uttarakhand Environment Conservation and Pollution Control Board, prior approval obtained by the petitioner from the Board was in fact by concealment of fact and therefore, under purported exercise of its powers under Section 31-A of the Act, which includes “the power to close down an industry”, the Board has exercised the powers and has ordered the said industry to be closed down. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand seeks parity of other writ petitions, which have been filed in this Court on similar issues. Learned counsel for the Board Mr. Sudhir Kumar, however, states that such a parity cannot be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as in other writ petition, the petitioner had approached this court after approaching the appellate Authority. Admittedly, the order presently impugned in the writ petition itself is an appealable order under Section 31 of the Act, therefore, on these admitted facts and on the basis of the fact that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 31 of the Act, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised, may file an appeal before the authority concerned. At this stage, one technical flaw has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Board, where he states that the appeal itself would be bared by limitation as an appeal can only be filed under the statute within a period of thirty days from the date of passing of the order. It is left open to the appellate authority to condone the delay or not to condone the same as the appellate authority has power to condone the delay under the proviso to Section 31 (1) of the Act. The appellate authority shall consider the aspect of the pendency of the writ petition before this Court and other relevant factors, which the petitioner may state before the appellate authority, in an event an appeal is filed by the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 21.5.2009 Rathour