Disposed

Indrajeet Kumar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Environment, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC19 May 2022/254/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL sought direction to close an alleged non-compliant brick kiln. The Court held that the petitioner failed to approach authorities first and dismissed the prayer for immediate closure. Instead, the Court directed the UPPCB and Zila Panchayat to verify compliance before taking action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to authorities to verify statutory compliance of the brick kiln and take appropriate action after hearing the respondent. No immediate closure ordered.

Indrajeet Kumar Singh and Others Vs State of… — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 254 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Indrajeet Kumar Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Environment, Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Singh,Anuj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Verma,Ram Raj

¶5

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel, Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel representing U.P. Pollution Control Board and Shri Ram Raj, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5.

¶7

By means of this Public Interest Litigation a prayer has been made to issue direction to the respondents "to ensure the closure" of a brick kiln allegedly being run by respondent no.8 at village Bada Gaon, Tehsil-Lambhua, District-Sultanpur. The allegations in the writ petition are that the requisite statutory compliances as required for running a brick kiln have not been completed by the respondent no.8 and as such in absence of such compliances respondent no.8 cannot be permitted to run the brick kiln.

¶8

Before filing this petition, the petitioner has made some representations to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil-Lambhua, District-Sultanpur and

¶9

Regional Officer, U.P. Control Board, Regional Office, Raebareli which have been annexed as annexure 3 at pages 17, 18 and 19 of the writ petition. The representations are identically worded and are dated 07.05.2022. These representations have been posted to the authorities on 07.05.2022 itself as is apparent from the postal receipt appended at the bottom of pages at 17, 18 and 19 of the writ petition.

¶10

After posting the representations on 07.02.2022, this petition appears to have been presented in the registry of this Court on 13.05.2022. Thus without giving appropriate and adequate time to the authorities to respond to the application dated 07.05.2022, this petition has been presented before the Court. Such a practice of filing Public Interest Litigation without approaching the authorities concerned and giving them adequate and appropriate time for taking lawful action which may be warranted under the facts of the case, cannot be appreciated. In the writ petition except for enclosing certain replies given to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, nothing has been indicated as to in what manner the provisions of enactments are being violated.

¶11

Having observed as above, what we find is that it is quite possible that the respondent no.8 might be running the brick kiln without fulfilling the statutory compliances as required

¶12

under various enactments. Accordingly, we direct that the entire issue shall be brought to the notice of the Chief Regional Officer, Pollution Control Board by Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel representing the U.P. Pollution Control Board and also to the notice of the Apar Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Sultanpur by the learned counsel representing the Zila Panchayat, Sultanpur. On facts of the case being brought to the notice of the Chief Regional Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board and Apar Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Sultanpur, they shall ensure that respondent no.8 is able to run the brick kiln only on fulfillment of the statutory and other legal requirements and in case it is found that any of such requisite conditions is/are being voilated, the authorities will be at liberty to take appropriate action which may be warranted under law. However, if any action is proposed against the respondent no.8, the appropriate authority of the Pollution Control Board and also that of Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, shall give adequate and appropriate opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.8.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.5.2022 akhilesh/

¶15

Digitally signed by AKHILESHWAR KUMAR Date: 2022.05.20 17:43:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Indrajeet Kumar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Environment, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajeet Kumar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Environment, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atul Kumar Srivastava and Others (in Wria 24378 of 2021) Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Secondry Edu. Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Shyam Lal and Another Vs Sub Dist. Magistrate Tehsil Sarojini Nagar Dist. Lko. and Others

Israr Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Manish Goel and Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning and Others

Mohammad Mujbil Alias Mohd. Muzammil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 2 Others

Mrs. Usha Roy Thru Her Attorney Satyadeo Prasad Roy S.P.Roy Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Housing and Urban Planning and Ors.