IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.423 of 2010 1. GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD S/O LATE RAMYASH MAHTO R/O VILL.- PILUE, P.S.- DAUDPUR, DISTT.- SARAN (CHAPRA) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE BIHAR STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BELTRON BHAWAN, SHASTRINAGAR, PATNA-800023 THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BIHAR STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BELTRON BHAWAN, SHASTRINAGAR, PATNA-800023 5. THE MEMBER SECRETARY BIHAR STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BELTRON BHAWAN, SHASTRINAGAR, PATNA-800023 6. THE POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER BIHAR STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BELTRON BHAWAN, SHASTRINAGAR, PATNA-800023 7. THE AREA OFFICER BIHAR STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s Shanti Pratap & Arvind Kumar Verma For the Board : Mr Shivendra Kishore, Advocate --- 3. 01.04.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for the Pollution Control Board. Learned Counsel for the Pollution Control Board submits that he has filed a counter affidavit in the Registry yesterday. The office shall place it on record. The Court therefore requested the Counsel to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceeding on grounds of delayed filing of the counter affidavit. Learned Counsel for the Board submits that the copy that he has placed may be kept on the record. It appears that the Pollution Control Board has finally rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of pollution clearance certificate by order dated 30.11.2009. It is submitted on behalf of the Board that the order is appealable. Leave is then sought to withdraw this application to avail alternative remedy of appeal. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into merits of the matter which remains open for consideration in its entirety by the appellate authority. It is expected that any such appeal shall be disposed off preferably within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of such memo of appeal. The petitioner contends that the impugned order has never been served on him. The counter affidavit though encloses the impugned order but does not make any specific assertion of the method and manner by which it has been served on the petitioner. The Court therefore directs that any such appeal shall be decided without going into the issues of limitation if the appeal itself be filed within 30 days from today. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)