( 1 ) THE petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. They are running a factory at premises bearing No. 48/n, KIADB Industrial Area, Doddaballapur, after obtaining the necessary permissions from various statutory authorities including the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board for the last 8 years. The petitioner has obtained the required consents under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. The said consents which are given are filed up to 30-6-2003. The petitioner company is manufacturing Di-Calcium Phosphate (DCP) which is an important ingredient in the feed for livestock and in fact also for human beings. The petitioners have secured contracts from Karnataka Milk Federation Ltd. and Kerala Co-op. Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. for supply of their products. One of the wastes that is being generated by the petitioner company is a product called 'waste rock' phosphate which is edible and to be used by both live stock and human beings; it is not hazardous and it does not in any manner cause any problem of any nature to anybody muchless affect the lands or area where it is stored. On the complaint of some villagers and one Green Peace Association when notice was issued to the petitioners, the petitioners replied the same bringing to the notice of the respondents that there is absolutely no substance in the complaint and there is no hazard from the manufacturing process of the petitioner. This was also evidenced by records which have been produced before the respts. The petitioner was served with a notice as per Annexure-K, dated 25-2-2003 under S. 33-A of the Water Act and Rule 34 of Water Rules calling upon them to show cause why action should not be taken for the illegalities mentioned in the said notice. The petitioner sent a reply as per Annexure-L along with documents L1 and L2. Thereafter nothing was heard. However, on 21-4-2003 as per Annexure-M the respondents purporting to exercise the power under S. 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for short) directed the petitioner to lift the sludge already stored in Sy. No. 101 of Veerapura village and to ensure that the same is stored within the premises of the industry in a scientific manner with necessary shelter. The petitioner sent a reply as per Annexure-N, dt. 26-4-2003 bringing to the notice of the respts. that the allegations contained in the said notice under reply are false and therefore, the question of complying with the directions issued in the said notice did not arise. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Annexure-A, dt. 21-4-2003 directing the petitioner to close/stop the industrial activity forthwith and a direction to the Managing Director BESCOM, Nerupatunga Rd. , to stop the power supply to the petr. forthwith. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE respondents who had entered caveat have filed a detailed statement of objections traversing all the allegations made by the petr. in the writ petition and also pointing out how the waste material released from the manufacturing process of the petitioner is hazardous to health and how it has affected the soil where the said material is stored. In the said statement of objections the respondents concede that before passing the impugned order no notice as required under sub-rule (3-b) of Rule 4 has been issued but they are defending the said action drawing support from the sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 where it is categorically provided that even without notice, such an order could be passed. Therefore, they submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) THE learned Senior Counsel Sri. R. N. Narsimhamurthy submits that the impugned order is passed under S. 5 of the Act. R. 4 of the Environment Protection Rules of 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) provides how directions are to be issued under