M. Chockalingam, J.- This appeal challenges the directions dated 12.4.2012 issued by the Goa State Pollution Control Board, the First respondent herein under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act 1981. Thereby the First respondent has cancelled/revoked consent to operate dated 24.2.2012 and further directed the appellant to stop business activities forthwith and report compliance within a period of seven days.

2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus. The appellant purchased a plot measuring 510 sq.m in survey No. 202/1A of village Calangute along with an existing house therein. The said house bearing No. 5/212/C has been in existence since 1970. The appellant converted the said old house into a small guest house consisting 20 rooms. After obtaining "No Objection Certificate" from the Village Panchayat, the appellant commenced a Guest House business under the name and style of Sea Shore Hotels. The appellant has made a substantial investment of Rs. 21 lakhs. He has no other business or source of income other than the said business. Though originally the appellant obtained establishment licence (Trade) from the Village Panchayat with an intention of operating the Restaurant the same was not renewed and the appellant did not operate the Restaurant. While the appellant was carrying on the said business a neighbour Mr. Anthony D' Souza who was running another Guest House by name and style of Horizon Hotel due to business rivalry was making false complaints to various authorities to initiate action against the appellant's business. There was a strange incident of discharge of sewage from the septic tank of the appellant. On the complaint of D' Souza, the Health Officer issued a Show Cause Notice dated 9.7.2011 and the first respondent issued a notice on 12.8.2011. Both notices were replied. After carrying out the necessary repairs and rectifying the overflow, the appellant informed the authorities on 25.7.2011 and 18.8.2011 and that there was no discharge of sewage thereafter. Both the Health Officer and the officials of the first respondent made a site inspection in the presence of D'Souza and recorded that there was no overflow of sewage from the septic tank of appellant. Pursuant to the communication from the First respondent, the appellant applied for consent to operate on 21.9.2011 by paying necessary fees therefor. Despite the application, the first respondent issued directions to the appellant under Section 33A of the Water Act dated 20.1.2012. The appellant informed to the First respondent that steps were taken for getting consent to operate and hence the directions could be withdrawn. Following the necessary inspection and also examining the application made by the appellant as well as the detailed plans submitted by the appellant and being satisfied, the first respondent issued the consent to operate dated 24.2.2012 under Water Act and also Air Act and the said consent to operate dated 24.2.2012 was granted for a period upto 20.10.2014 and the same was in force.

3. While the matter stood thus, D'Sousa made complaint through his Advocate. Being misled by the same, the Second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13.9.2011 to the appellant. The appellant filed his reply on 28.9.2011 inter alia stating that the structure of the appellant was an old one and he has not violated any provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and CRZ Notification, 1991. He further stated that the Second respondent had already gone through the very same issue in the year 2004 and after being satisfied with the documents of the appellant had not pursued the matter further. While the Second respondent resorted to drastic measure of directing disconnection of electricity and water to the appellant's structure through a notice dated 10.12.2004, the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of B