Allowed

Chandra Bali Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Forests, Environment Forests and Climate Change Dept. and Ors.

Allahabad HC28 May 2025WRIC/5137/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A mining operator challenged closure orders passed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board that rested on inspection reports never supplied to him and a show cause notice naming no specific violation of his consent-to-operate conditions. Finding the orders violated principles of natural justice, the court quashed them but permitted the Board to issue a fresh notice with proper details.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 19.02.2024 quashed; liberty to Board to proceed afresh by issuing fresh show cause notice with appropriate details.

Chandra Bali Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru… — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32249-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5137 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Chandra Bali Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Forests, Environment Forests And Climate Change Dept. And Ors

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Utsav Misra,Santosh Kumar Shukla

¶6

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

¶7

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Anushree Moitra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Utsav Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board.

¶9

2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of orders dated 19.02.2024 (as contained in Annexure Nos.1 & 2) passed by the Chief Environmental Officer (Circle-2), U.P. Pollution Control Board, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

¶10

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage.

¶11

4. It is true that some proceedings for carrying out

¶12

mining without issuance of a C.T.O. by U.P. Pollution Control Board had been initiated against the petitioner before the National Green Tribunal i.e. N.G.T. and the matter was set at rest by order dated 13.08.2024, a copy of which has been placed before us.

¶13

5. It is informed that the petitioner has taken up his cause in so far as the quantification of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,30,000/- is concerned. The objections filed by the petitioner are under consideration.

¶14

6. The present order of closure passed on 19.02.2024 proceeds on the strength of an inspection report dated 08/09.02.2024 of which a show cause notice is stated to have been issued to the petitioner on 12.01.2024. The show cause notice dated 12.01.2024 mentions the inspection dates as 28.12.2023 to 30.12.2023.

¶15

7. We do not gather any reflection of such inspection reports to have surfaced in the previous proceedings decided by N.G.T. by order dated 13.08.2024.

¶16

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the show cause notice dated 12.01.2024 does not set out any violation whatsoever as may have been specifically postulated under the C.T.O. issued in favour of the petitioner on 21.06.2023. It is further submitted that the petitioner is carrying

¶17

out the business of mining after the issuance of C.T.O. dated 21.06.2023 strictly in accordance with law.

¶18

9. It is submitted that unless the violation of C.T.O. or any condition of the lease is specifically mentioned in the show cause notice regarding which a reply sought from him after furnishing necessary material, an order of closure passed against the petitioner is clearly in the teeth of principles of natural justice.

¶19

10. Shri A.K. Verma, the learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution control Board on the contrary has not been able to justify as to how the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 is sustainable when the inspection reports relied upon the show cause notice as well as in the impugned orders were neither supplied to the petitioner nor a specific violation of C.T.O. was mentioned therein.

¶20

11. In these circumstances, the submissions put forth before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner have force and the order of closure requires interference in the interest of justice.

¶21

12. At this stage, the learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board has submitted that the Board may be granted a liberty to proceed against the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, by issuing a fresh notice containing appropriate details/accompanied by the relevant material.

¶22

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 19.02.2024, as contained in Annexure Nos.1 & 2 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed.

¶23

14. However, it will be open for the authorities to institute fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law by issuing a fresh show cause notice, keeping in view the observations made in this order.

¶24

[Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 28.5.2025 cks/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandra Bali Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Forests, Environment Forests and Climate Change Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bali Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Forests, Environment Forests and Climate Change Dept. and Ors.

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

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secy. Excise Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another vs Prem Singh

Sita Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Suryabhan Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways New Delhi and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Develop,Ent Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Secondary Education) Lko. and 4 Others vs Raj Narain Dubey and 2 Others