Dismissed

Indrajeet Puri v. State of U.P. through Secretary Control of Pollution and Another

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2020WRIC/6300/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chief Justice's Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a closure order issued to the petitioner for operating a pulverization machine in an air pollution control zone. The court held that no adequate inspection was conducted and the petitioner lacked necessary clearances, finding no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to close down industrial operation; Writ Petition dismissed.

Indrajeet Puri Vs State of U.P. through… — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6300 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Indrajeet Puri Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Control Of Pollution And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Nath Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Mr. Mehul Khare, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 2.

¶6

This petition for writ is directed to question correctness of the order dated 2nd December, 2019 passed by the Regional Officer, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Saharanpur.

¶7

By the order aforesaid, the petitioner has been directed to close down industrial operation in residential area being in violation of the directions issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and also by this Court in a petition for writ. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that before giving instructions to close down the industrial unit no adequate inspection of the site was made. On asking learned counsel failed to satisfy us about having any approval by the petitioner from the Uttar Pradesh State Pollution Control Board to have industrial operation in notified air pollution area. Under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, certain restrictions are prescribed on use of industrial plants. The petitioner is utilizing pulverization machine with the capacity of 20 HP. The petitioner is also using diesel engine to operate the machine aforesaid. Such machine as per the provisions applicable and in light of the directions given by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under the order referred in the communication dated 2nd December, 2019 cannot operate

¶8

pulverization machine of the capacity referred above in the industrial area. In light of it, we do not find any just reason to interfere in the matter while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.

¶9

Order Date :- 20.2.2020 VMA

¶10

(Samit Gopal, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Indrajeet Puri v. State of U.P. through Secretary Control of Pollution and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajeet Puri v. State of U.P. through Secretary Control of Pollution and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Veer Vs State of U.P. through Shief Secretary (Home) and 5 Others

Savitri Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Civil Supply and 3 Others

Baboo Lal Patel Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secreatry Govt. of U.P.and 6 Others

surendra kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Mange Ram Chaudhari Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Pankaj Mudgal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others