JUDGMENT :

H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.

1. The petitioner being aggrieved with the notification dated 23.12.2020, issued by the respondent No. 2, State Pollution Control Board under Section 17 (1)(n) under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 17 (1)(h) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, whereby norms/criteria have been prescribed for siting of Coke plants of various capacities, which it is alleged is without jurisdiction and ultra vires the Air and Water Pollution Acts, is before this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

2. This Court on the challenge to the maintainability that had been made by the respondents by order dated 26.10.2022, had held this writ petition to be maintainable as the National Green Tribunal does not possess the power of judicial review, apart from the fact that nothing in the NGT Act, ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court

3. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

4. Ms. B. Dikshit, with Mr. M. Lyngdoh, learned counsels for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the impugned notification is patently without jurisdiction, and has been passed with total disregard to the statutory provisions of the Air and Water Pollution Acts. The attention of this Court, has been drawn to Section 17 (1)(n) of the Water Pollution Act, which the learned counsel submits, specifically stipulates that one of the functions of the State Pollution Control Board, with regard to siting, is to advise the State Government with respect to the location of any industry, the carrying on of which is likely to pollute a stream or a well. It is contended that, a plain reading of the said provision, thus indicate that, the impugned notification issued by the State Pollution Control Board which is patently not advisory, but a prescription of norms is clearly ultra vires the statute, and without any jurisdiction.

5. The learned counsel submits that the point in issue therefore is limited only to the legality of the impugned notification and that the provisions as contained in Section 17 (1) (n) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 17 (1) (h) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 being specific and clear, the impugned notification not being advisory but prescribing siting norms is clearly in violation of the Water and Air Acts. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of J.K. Industries Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 673 and St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional Director , National Council for Teacher Education & Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 321, to substantiate the arguments that an authority upon whom a specific power is conferred, is to act within the limits of such powers as prescribed in the Act.

6. Mr. A. Kumar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, learned counsel for the respondent submits that even though the impugned notification has been issued under Section 17 (1)(n) and 17(1)(h) of the Water and Air Pollution Acts respectively, the same is well within the powers of the State Pollution Control Board, as stipulated by the Act, by the application of Sections 21 and 25 thereof, which has cloaked the Boards with ample power to prohibit and restrict the setting up of any activity, that may cause pollution. The learned Advocate General has contended that Section 21 (5) (v) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 also empowers the State Pollution Control Board to specify such conditions necessary