HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5165 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- M/S C.L. Y. Brick Field Village And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santoosh Kumar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Nath Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 and Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 5.

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

"i. issue a writ or direction of a suitable nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.1.2020 passed by the respondent no.5.

ii- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the rspondents authorities has not interfere in running the brick kiln of the petitioner of the petitioner firms namely M/S C.L.Y. Brick field of village and Post Bareediha Tehsil Ghanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners."

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned direction has been issued by respondent no.5 without either issuing any notice to the petitioner or affording him any opportunity of hearing and hence, the same cannot be sustained.

Per contra, Sri J.N, Maurya, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 5 has submitted that the impugned direction contains a clear recital that the petitioner upon inspection was found running brick kiln without obtaining No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as "the Certificate') from the U.P. Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and since the petitioner has neither challenged the correctness of the aforesaid finding recorded in the impugned direction nor he has brought on record the the Certificate, if any, issued by the Board in his favour, no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter back to respondent no.5 for passing a fresh order in the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, we find force in the submissions made by Sri J.N. Mauryav, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 5. The writ petition neither contains any recital that any Certificate was issued by the Board permitting the petitioner to run a brick kiln nor the correctness of the finding recorded by respondent no.5 in the impugned direction that the petitioner was found running brick kiln without obtaining the Certificate has been challenged.

In view of above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order which is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent evidence.

However, in case the petitioner approaches the Board for grant of No Objection Certificate, his prayer shall be considered in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 13.2.2020 Shalini