1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.489 OF 2009 Reliance Infrastructure Limited & anr. .. Petitioners v/s. The State of Mahahrashtra & ors. .. Respondents Mr.J.J. Bhat with Ms.Anjali Chandurkar i/by M/s.Mulla & Mulla for Petitioners. Ms.Geeta Shastri, AGP for Res.No.1. Ms.Sharmila Deshpande for Res.No.2 ---- CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 6th July, 2009 P.C.: 1.Heard. 2.A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioners on 13.8.2007 by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (for short the Board ). In absence of any reply to the said Show Cause Notice, the Board had informed the Petitioners that the matter would be decided on the basis of available material. One of the reasons for issuing the Show Cause Notice was in paragraph 7 of the Show Cause Notice which reads as under:- 2 The analysis report of samples of ash pond for the month of April & May, 2007 indicate parameter like suspender solids exceeding the consented limits. Results of ambient air quality monitoring for the month of May & June 2007, the parameters like RSPM & SPM found exceeding the consented limits. This is the only reason which is necessary for disposal of this Petition. The Petitioners filed a reply and an order came to be passed by the Board on 26th of October 2007 in which the competent Authority held that the Assessees failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the consent granted by the Board under the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and hence, the Assessess deserve to be assessed as per Column 3 of Schedule-II of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 without granting rebate under Section 7 of the said Act for the period from April 2007 to June 2007. 2.Thereafter the Petitioners filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority and it is curious that in paragraph 18 of the Memo of Appeal it was contended as follows:- 18. As per JVS results high value of RSPM in the month of May 07 & SPM RSPM in the month of 3 June 07 monitored at Field Hostel are temporarily gone high. This may have occurred due to the current construction activities of our new guest house near Field Hostel. This is a temporary localized phenomenon and not related to any plant activities or the source stack emissions. It may also please be noted that the value of SPM & RSPM in April 07 and in the months after May 07 are well below the prescribed limits. Moreover kindly note that the TPM value of stack monitoring done by MPCB in all the months are well below the prescribed limits. Thus the said violation if any not attributed to process, even then the report indicate that the excess is marginal and that too on restricted area (which was due to local condition of construction activities) was marginal. Our ambient air quality monitoring every week as per the CPCB guidelines do not show any parameter exceeding limit. This has been replied to your SRO & RO office wide our letter dated 21/06/2007 (Exhibit C). MPCB has also been carrying out joint sampling for the above assessment period. 3. Since the Petitioners themselves have conceded that pollution had occurred, the Appellate Authority relied on the admissions of the Petitioners as well as other material 4 before it to dismiss the Appeal. We do not find that this was a case of no evidence or it was a finding based on the perversity. This Court is not an Appellate Court. In view of the admissions made by the Petitioners themselves that temporary pollution had occurred on account of some construction activities, we do not feel that there is a scope for this Court to intervene in the matter. The Writ Petition is misconceived and it is, therefore, dismissed. [BILAL NAZKI, J.] [V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]