M/S C.L. Y. Brick Field Village and Another Vs… — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2020)

M/S C.L. Y. Brick Field Village and Another Vs… — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None of the prayers (certiorari, mandamus, costs) was granted; the writ petition was disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner approaches the Board for grant of No Objection Certificate, his prayer shall be considered in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned direction dated 29.1.2020 issued by respondent no.5 without notice to, or opportunity of hearing for, the petitioner can be sustained. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition contains no recital that any Certificate was issued by the Board permitting the petitioner to run a brick kiln.

Ratio / Principle

The correctness of the finding recorded by respondent no.5 in the impugned direction that the petitioner was found running the brick kiln without obtaining the Certificate has not been challenged by the petitioner.

Key takeaways

No useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter back to respondent no.5 for a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing; the Court expressly adopted the submission of learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 5 on this point.ratio¶14
There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent evidence.ratio¶15
If the petitioner approaches the Board for grant of No Objection Certificate, his prayer shall be considered in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 5165 of 2020) by M/S C.L. Y. Brick Field Village against a direction dated 29.1.2020 issued by respondent no.5, challenged as having been passed without notice or opportunity of hearing. The impugned direction recorded that, upon inspection, the petitioner was found running a brick kiln without obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the U.P. Pollution Control Board under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The writ petition contained no recital that any such Certificate had been issued by the Board, and the petitioner did not challenge the correctness of that finding; the Court therefore held that no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter for a fresh order. Finding no reason to interfere with an order based on relevant considerations and supported by cogent evidence, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing that if the petitioner approaches the Board for the No Objection Certificate, his prayer shall be considered in accordance with law. (Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana and Shamim Ahmed, JJ.; decision dated 13.2.2020.)

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