Dismissed¶9

Devendra Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Horticulture Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2025WPIL/224/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Brick kiln; Shan Brick Field; Miyanganj; Pargana Inhauna; Tehsil Tiloi; District Amethi; consent to operate; U.P. Pollution Control Board; Section 31, Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; maintainability of PIL; incorrect facts; non-joinder of offending unit; remedy against grant of consent; Sumit Singh v. State of U.P. 2014(6) AWC 5791; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:16398-DB; Lucknow Bench; petition dismissed 21.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed, with the petitioner left free to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. ¶9

Devendra Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Horticulture Lucknow and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16398-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 224 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Soni

¶5

Respondent :- State of U.P. thru Secy. Horticulture Lucknow and others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Zahir Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Akash Sinha, S.C.,Ashok Kumar Verma

¶7

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

This petition purportedly in public interest has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the opposite parties to remove illegal brick kiln namely, Shan Brick Field situated at village - Miyanganj, Pargana - Inhauna, Tehsil - Tiloi, District - Amethi.

¶9

Vehement submission has been made seeking to allege pollution being created by the said brick kiln and that the brick kiln is functioning contrary to the prescribed norms and without seeking any permission under the law.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Pollution Control Board has produced the consent to operate dated 06.02.2025 issued in favour of the said brick kiln and on instructions indicates that the first such consent was granted on 25.09.2020.

¶11

Further submission has been made that in case the petitioner is aggrieved, he has a remedy of questioning the validity of the grant under Section 31 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981('the Act'). He also submits that the purported offending brick kiln, has not been impleaded as party.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on order of this

¶13

Court in Sumit Singh v. State of U.P. & others : 2014(6) AWC 5791 .

¶14

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶15

The petition has been filed with the allegation that the brick kiln was being operated without requisite permission under the law, which allegation is factually incorrect in terms of consent to operate produced by counsel for the Pollution Control Board. Once the brick kiln in question is operating under a valid consent to operate, and the petitioner has any grievance qua grant of consent to operate, the same needs to be challenged in accordance with law i.e. under Section 31 of the Act.

¶16

The present Public Interest Litigation with incorrect facts and without impleading the purported offending brick kiln cannot be entertained.

¶17

The petition is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.3.2025 nd

¶19

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Devendra Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Horticulture Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Horticulture Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Randheer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others Vs Deependra Prakash Tiwari

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Crest Digitel Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Auth. Signatory Vijay Kumar Vs Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Anant Kumar Chandola vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Edu. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Ambedkarnagar Thru. Manager Vs Angad Kumar Tiwari and Ors.