Rajiv Sharma, J:- The brief facts which are necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-Board has sent a communication to the petitioner-company on 21st May 1999 seeking the following information: (i) "Approved Project Reports, (ii) Site/Location Plan (iii) Building Plan (iv) Approval from Telecom Deptt. (v) Details of Machinery . (vi) Date of establishment & Operation (vii) Details of pollution Control devices to control air and noise pollution and air noise monitoring report of day and night time, (viii) Consent/renewal fees as per the approved project report."

2. The petitioner-company was further apprised vide this communication that it has not sought the necessary clearance of the Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and for violating these provisions, the company was liable to be prosecuted.

3. It appears that the company had deposited a sum of Rs. 26,000/- for obtaining consent on 6th September, 1999. The company was directed to provide the adequate stack attachment to the DG exhaust vide communication dated 18.12.1999. The company had informed the Board about the necessary compliance of the directions issued on 18.12.1999 vide communication Annexure P-6. The Board had called upon the petitioner-company on 2nd March, 2000 to deposit fee of Rs. 20,180/- for consent/renewal. The company had deposited a sum of Rs. 20,180/- on 3rd March, 2000. The Board had granted NOC/consent to the petitioner-company for operati9on of cellular mobile telephone services in Shimla District valid upto 31st March, 2000 by way of communication dated 3.3.2000. The company was directed to apply for the renewal of consent for the year 2000-01 in the letter dated 8.11.2000. The Board had issued letter to the company on 22nd September, 2001 to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,32,630/-. The Board had issued office order dated 28th December, 2001 bringing to its notice that the unit was directed to deposit the balance fees due and apply for consent of the State Board upto the year along with requisite annual licence fees before 9:1.2002. The Company had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,92,362/- on 8.1.2002, The company had made a request to the Chairman of the Board for waiver of penalty on 8 January, 2002. The company had enclosed a cheque of Rs. 1,06,910/- towards payment of fees. The Board had directed the company on 7th May, 2002 to deposit penalty fee i.e. Rs. 35,900/- and apply for renewal of consent for the current year.

4. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-company had strenuously argued that the company is a non-polluting unit and is not required to get consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and also the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989.

5. Mr. A.K. Bansal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board had submitted that the petitioner-company is required to get the consent for carrying out its operations as per the Acts mentioned above.

6. I have heard the parties and perused the record.

7. The Parliament has enacted an Act called Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Section 25 of the Act ibid imposes restrictions on new outlets and new discharges without the consent to the Board. The expression outlet, sewage effluent, sewer and trade affluent have been defined under section 2 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

8. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate had*submitted that the operation of the unit is not resulting in any sewage effluent and sewer as defined under section 2 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and is not required to get the consent under the Act. Mr. A.K. Bansal, Advocate was not in a position to point out that the operation carried out by the petitioner-comp