HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Chief Justice's Court
 

 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 20773 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Sumit Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Trivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dr. H.N. Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

The petition, which has been filed in the public interest, makes a grievance in regard to the establishment and operation of brick kilns in violation of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Brick Kilns (Site Criteria for Establishment) Rules, 2012 in the districts of Baghpat and Meerut.

These rules have been framed under sections 54(2)(z) and 21(2) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to regulate the criteria for the establishment of brick kilns in the State. Rule 2 defines, inter alia, the prohibited distance within which a brick kiln cannot be established from a residential area or, as the case may be, hospitals, schools, public buildings and religious places. Rule 3 provides that no licence in respect of the firing of a brick kiln or for mining lease shall be granted by the Zila Panchayat/District Administration concerned until and unless a valid previous consent has been obtained by the owner of the brick kiln from the State Pollution Control Board. Rule 7 provides for the manner in which the application has to be submitted to the State Pollution Control Board for granting permission for operation of the brick kiln.

According to the petitioner, a report was submitted on 31 October 2013 by a committee of the State Pollution Control Board that several brick kilns were continuing with the work of construction though the proposals for grant of No Objection Certificates had been rejected by the Board. The report also mentions that in many cases, brick kilns had even commenced operation though their proposals for grant of No Objection Certificates had been rejected by the Board. Since no action was being taken by the authorities including the District Administration, the present writ petition has been filed in the public interest.

A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 stating that three members of the family of the petitioner namely, his mother, step mother and elder brother are operating brick kilns where there are large stocks of unsold bricks and hence the petition has been filed, it is urged, to prevent the stocks of the surrounding brick kilns from coming into the market. Moreover, it has been stated that an earlier petition which had been filed by the petitioner (Writ-C No.168 of 2013) was dismissed as not pressed by a Division Bench of this Court on 29 January 2013.

On the other hand, it has been submitted by the petitioner that the mere fact that members of his family conduct brick kilns is no ground for rejection of the petition since it is submitted that the petitioner has separated from his family. Moreover, it has been submitted that the petitioner has filed several other petitions in the public interest which have been entertained by the Court.

A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Pollution Control Board. It has been stated that there are fifteen brick kilns in the district Baghpat which are mentioned in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The Pollution Control Board has granted its No Objection Certificate to nine brick kilns whose names are set out in Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. The application for grant of a No Objection Certificate to five brick kilns, whose names are also set out in Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit, was rejected. On 12 April 2014, the Regional Office of the Pollution Control Board issued notices to these five brick kiln owners calling upon them not to run their brick kilns without a No Objection Certificate or consent of the Board as required under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Insofar as the Meerut district is concerned, it has been stated that the Regional Office of the Pollution Control Board had granted consent on 17 December 2013 to one brick kiln and on verification, it has been found that the other two brick kilns, which have been referred to by the petitioner, are not in existence.

In our view, for the purpose of these proceedings, even if the Court was to come to the conclusion that there is some doubt about the bonafides of the petitioner, that should not, in a matter as the present, result in rejection of the petition once facts which have a bearing on the public interest have been brought to the notice of the Court through an affidavit of the Pollution Control Board. Where a petition is filed for extraneous or oblique motives, the Court in the exercise of its judicial discretion may decline to interfere. However, this is undoubtedly a matter of judicial discretion because in a particular case, material may be brought to the attention of the Court independently by a statutory authority which may require judicial intervention. However, the Court has to be careful and circumspect because, where the locus of the petitioner or his motivation are in doubt, it may be necessary to structure the relief sought so as to ensure that the petition is not used as an instrument for suppressing a business rival. This note of circumspection has to be kept in mind in the present case.

The Pollution Control Board has now stated before the Court that in Baghpat district, No Objection Certificates were granted to nine brick kilns whereas in the case of five brick kilns, the proposals for the grant of No Objection Certificates were rejected. The notices which have been issued by the Pollution Control Board on 12 April 2014 (Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit) would indicate that despite the refusal of the No Objection Certificates, the brick kilns are being conducted. In our view, there is absolutely no reason or justification for the Board in failing to discharge its statutory obligation. It is only when this petition came up before the Court on 10 April 2014 that the Pollution Control Board seems to have been galvanized into action. Obviously, if the Board was active in the enforcement of law and in the discharge of its statutory obligation, it would not have waited for the intervention of the Court before taking such action. Hence, we must express our serious concern about the manifest failure on the part of the Board in not taking remedial measures. The Regional Officers of the Pollution Control Board must be held accountable for failure to carry out the statutory obligations which they have to perform.

We, therefore, direct that the Pollution Control Board shall take all due and necessary steps to ensure that the work of the Regional Officers is closely monitored so as to ensure that the statutory duties and obligations which are cast upon them are duly performed. Now, when the Board has issued notices on 12 April 2014 to the brick kiln owners who have been operating their brick kilns without permission or consent of the Board, we direct that the Board shall make all endeavour to take the matter to its logical conclusion. The District Administration shall also co-operate with the Board to ensure compliance of law.

As it has come to the notice of the Court that some brick kilns have been conducting their business even without grant of No Objection Certificates or consent of the Board, it has become necessary to issue the following directions :-

i) We direct that the Board shall make a detailed survey of all the brick kilns operating in the districts of Meerut and Baghpat and ensure that any brick kiln found to be operating without the consent or permission of the Board and in breach of the 2012 Rules, is dealt with in accordance with law;

ii) We also find no reason or justification as to why the instructions/directions given above should not be applied across the State. We, therefore, direct that a survey should be carried out by the Board in respect of all the districts of the State. The survey shall be completed within a period of two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order;

iii) Where the Board finds that the operation of any brick kiln is being carried out without the No Objection Certificate of the Board or in breach of the 2012 Rules, immediate steps shall be taken in accordance with law with due notice to the brick kiln owners. These enquiries shall be taken to their logical conclusion and shall be completed no later than within a period of three months thereafter;

iv) In order to maintain transparency in the working of the Board and its Regional Offices, details of the notices issued and the action taken should be periodically uploaded on the website of the State Pollution Control Board;

v) The Board shall also upload the names of all the brick kilns which have submitted applications for granting the No Objection Certificates as also the names of brick kilns which have been granted such certificates so as to facilitate a verification of whether any brick kiln in the State is being operated without the grant of the requisite permission or a No Objection Certificate of the Board. Likewise, the refusal to grant a No Objection Certificate should also be periodically uploaded on the website of the Board. The exercise of uploading the No Objection Certificates which have already been granted shall be completed within a period of two months;

vi) The due exercise of statutory powers by the Pollution Control Board also requires the co-operation of the District Administration and the law enforcement machinery. The District Administration and the law enforcement machinery of the districts shall, therefore, take all necessary steps to ensure due compliance with the lawful instructions and directives issued by the Board.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Date:01.05.2014 SK (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ) (Dilip Gupta, J)