Disposed

Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2023WRIC/7433/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the installation of a cemented pipe for a brick kiln. Noting that the Pollution Board had already taken action and an appeal was pending, the Court declined to proceed, directing that the appeal be placed before the District Magistrate for a final decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of; the pending appeal may be placed before the District Magistrate to take a final decision.

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7433 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar Pd Gupta,Girijesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Nath Tripathi,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard Sri G.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

¶6

The present writ petition is preferred for a direction commanding the respondent no.2 to take immediate action against the respondent no.4 for removal of cemented pipe from Chakroad in Khasra No.107 which was illegally installed to cross fire/to burn brick kiln of his ent-bhatta udyog in Khasra No.116 and 117 just adjacent to the petitioner and other villagers residences to safeguard public health forthwith.

¶7

Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.5, on the instructions received, submits that the respondent U.P. Pollution Board, Ghaziabad has already taken cognizance on the complaint of the petitioner and the NOC issued to the fourth respondent has already been recalled/withdrawn. He further submits that so far as the action taken by the U.P. Pollution Board, Ghaziabad is concerned, the same has been taken in pursuance of the provisions of the Air (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and in case the owner of the brick kiln is aggrieved by the order passed by the Pollution Board, he has got the remedy to file an appeal under Section 31(1) of the Act.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, apprised the Court that against the order dated 20.3.2023 passed by the U.P. Pollution Board an appeal has already been preferred by the fourth respondent, owner of the brick kiln, impleading the petitioner/complainant and the said proceedings are still pending consideration.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, at this

¶10

stage we are not inclined to proceed with the matter. Once the Pollution Board has already taken action in the matter which is subject matter of the challenge, suffice to indicate that the proceedings of the pending appeal may be placed before the District Magistrate concerned to take a final decision so that appropriate action may be taken.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.4.2023 Salim

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Prashant Kumar Tyagi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shakuntla Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kashmir Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bijendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sanjay Sharma Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Rajveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others