Sr. No.02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA No.88/2025 CM No.2336/2025 Bashir Ahmad Dar …Petitioner(s)/Appellants. Through: Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate, with Ms. Ainanin Qadiri, Advocate, and Mr. Bhat Shafi, Advocate. Vs. UT of Jammu & Kashmir and others. ….Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 06.05.2025 01. This is an intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against an order dated February 12, 2025, whereby the order passed by the Jammu & Kashmir Pollution Control Committee (JKPCC) dated October 31, 2024, vide which the Furniture Manufacturing Unit being run by Mohammad Shafi Dar (respondent no.9) was directed to be closed down, has since been stayed. 02. In brief, the case set out by the appellant is; The appellant (Bashir Ahmad Dar) is a resident of Khapora, Muniwar, Anantnag. For respondent no.9 was running a Joinery Unit (M/s Modern Furniture) in a residential area, the appellant and the local residents complained to the official respondents.Resultantly, inspection was carried out by the Divisional Officer, PCC Anantnag and as per his report, M/s Modern Furniture was in operation without consent from the J&K PCC. The recommendations of the Divisional Officer, PCC Anantnag, were endorsed by the Regional Director, PCC Kashmir. And accordingly, he submitted the closure format of M/s Modern Furniture. For the furniture manufacturing unit of respondent no.9 could prove detrimental for human health and environment, the JKPCC in exercise of its power under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, directed the Deputy Commissioner/ District Magistrate, Anantnag, to close down the Unit. Similarly, directions were issued to the concerned authorities to de-register the unit, disconnect the electricity and water supplies.And respondent no.9 was directed to cease the operations of the unit forthwith. For the authorities failed to enforce the order dated October 31, 2024 (Ibid) and comply with the directions contained therein, the appellant was constrained to approach this Court vide WP(C) No.3044/2024. The learned Single Judge on December 24, 2024, issued notice and the official respondents were granted time to submit objections as also the status report viz-a-viz the order dated October 31, 2024. As a result, the authorities disconnected the power supply to the unit. Being aggrieved, Mohammad Shafi Dar, who was arrayed as respondent no.9 in the petition filed by the appellant, preferred WP(C) No.251/2025 assailing the order dated October 31,2024. And as indicated earlier, vide impugned order dated February 12, 2025, the learned Single Judge while issuing notice stayed the operation of the order dated October 31,2024 and directed the authorities to restore operations of the Unit of respondent no.9. Thus, this appeal. 03. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no.9 rather than filing objections/ response and contesting the writ petition filed by the appellant preferred a separate petition. And neither did he disclose the pendency of the petition filed by the appellant nor impleaded him as party in his petition. He submits that since respondent no.9 was operating his unit without mandatory approval/ sanction from the Jammu & Kashmir Pollution Control Board (JKPCB), the order dated October 31, 2024, passed by JKPCC was the only inevitable option. Not just that, respondent no.9, misled the court for he claimed to be a labourer, who to earn his livelihood would do woodcarving and carry out his job in a small room. Whereas, he was actually operating a full-fledged joinery mill, equipped with two large machines and two smaller machines consuming 30 HP electricity supply. Apparently, even the learned Single seriously erred, for despite appellant being not arrayed as a party to the petition, vide impugned order, not only stayed the order dated October 31, 2024 (Ibid) but also directed the authorities to restore operations/ working of the unit. He asserts that in fact the learned Single Judge has granted relief which could have been viable only at the final stage post adjudication of the rights of all the stakeholders. Further, the order dated October 31, 2024 (Ibid) was/ is appealable under Section 33-B of the 1974 Act and, therefore, the writ court ought not to have entertained the petition. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside on this score alone. He has placed reliance, in this regard, on paragraphs 43, 44 and 45 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. SatyawatiTondon : (2010) 8 SCC 110. 04. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. 05. Ex-facie, in a petition [WP(C) No.3044/2024] filed by the appellant he seeks implementation/ enforcement of the order dated October 31, 2024. And as indicated earlier, the learned Single Judge had required the respondent authorities to furnish objections as also to submit a status report. We are informed that the matter is pending for May 16, 2025. On the contrary, respondent no.9, being aggrieved of the said order (Ibid) has filed a separate petition [WP(C) No.251/2025], and the matter is now listed for May, 28.2025. Further a bare analysis of the impugned order reveals that the sane was/ is subject to the objections to be filed by the respondents. We are informed that the pleadings are still incomplete. Concededly, the appellant is not a party to the said petition. Thus, in the given circumstances, we are of the view that rather than assailing the order dated February 12, 2025, vide this appeal, the appellant, in the first instance, ought to have moved an appropriate application in WP(C) No.251/2025 to be arrayed as respondent and sought vacation of the interim order dated February 12, 2025 expressing his concerns/ grievances. Page 4 of 5 06. As regards the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in United Bank of India v. SatyawatiTondon(supra), there can’t be any quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court: “43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. …………….. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. ……………. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.” However, the argument that since the order dated October 31, 2024 is appealable under Section 33-B of the 1974 Act and respondent no.9 has an alternate remedy of appeal under the Statute, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, lacks conviction and cannot be countenanced. 07. For, as indicated earlier, the appellant is yet not a party to the petition preferred by respondent no.9. Needless to assert that he is at liberty to move the learned Single Judge and point out that it was owing to the complaint made by him the matter was enquired into by the authorities and the order dated October 31, 2024 was passed.Therefore, he being a necessary party be arrayed as such. Similarly, can seek vacation of the interim order dated February 12, 2025, submit objections on merits as also for order dated October 31, 2024 is appealable under Section 33-B of the 1974 Act, he be relegated to avail an alternate remedy. 08. In the wake of the positions sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere in the matter. However, we consider it expedient and necessary to club both the petitions so that they are heard and decided by the same Bench. Ordered accordingly. 09. We may, however, clarify that this order shall not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the case of either party. 10. The office is, accordingly, directed to serve a copy of this order upon learned counsel for the respective parties in WP(C) No.251/2025. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 06.05.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy.