Vikas Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2025WPIL/391/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL alleging a brick-kiln was run without consents under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. State stated the kiln has been closed. Court noted recurring illegal operation and sought suggestions from State and Pollution Control Board; matter listed for further hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vikas Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin… — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 391 of 2025

¶3

Petitioner :- Vikas Upadhyay

¶4

Respondent :- State of U.P. thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Tiwari,Neetu Singh,Smt. Usha Tiwari,Sushila Pandey

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- Isha Mittal, S.C., Ashok Kumar Verma

¶7

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

¶8

The present petition has been filed, inter alia, indicating that brick-kiln is being operated by respondent No.6 without seeking permission under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981 (for short, 'the Act of 1981') and the Rules made thereunder.

¶9

Instructions have been produced on behalf of the State, inter alia, indicating that the brick-kiln indeed was functional without seeking any permission under the provisions of the Act of 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act of 1974'), however, the same has now been closed and instructions have been given not to operate without seeking permission.

¶10

The above situation is regularly coming before the Court, wherein the brick-klins are being permitted to function without requisite permissions under the Act of 1981 and the Act of 1974 and it is only when the petitions are filed before the Court seeking restraint then the respondents act against the said illegal brick-kilns and stop their working. However, cases have also come before the Court wherein within few days, brick kilns again start working.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel and the counsel appearing for the U.P. Pollution Control Board pray for time to make submissions and suggest ways and means by which the menace of present nature can be managed/taken care of.

¶12

Needful may be done by the next date.

¶13

List on 21.05.2025.

¶14

Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Rakesh/-

¶15

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

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vikas Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vikas Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sant Bux Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Education and Research and Ors.

State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl.Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Secretariat Administration Deptt. Lko and Ors. vs Shiv Datt Joshi and 21 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lucknow and Others vs Ram Prasad Verma

Mukesh Pradhan and Another vs Sanjeev Kumar Sinha and 11 Others

Sobharam Janseva Foundation Thru.Its Vice President Anand Singh Bhadouria Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply. Lucknow and 10 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl.Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Secretariat Administration Deptt. Lko and Ors. vs Shiv Datt Joshi and 21 Others