Quashed

Parbin Sultana v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Aug 2024WP(C)/2782/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A brick kiln proprietor challenged a sealing order issued for alleged violation of the Assam Brick Kilns Establishment and Regulation Rules, 2013. As respondents failed to show the Rules had been notified in the Gazette despite repeated opportunities, the court quashed the order and consequential actions and directed de-sealing of the premises.

What the court decided

AI extract

Parbin Sultana Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010103682024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2782/2024

¶5

PARBIN SULTANA PROPRIETOR , M/S JPIS ENTERPRISE, W/O- MD. JIYAUR PASA, NALBARI TOWN, WARD NO-8, P.S AND P.O- NALBARI, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781335

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

¶8

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT , DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

¶9

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781335

¶10

3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NALBARI REVENUE CIRCLE NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781335

¶11

4:THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ASSAM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21

¶12

5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FOREST DEPARTMENT

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

DISPUR GUWAHATI-

¶15

For the petitioner (s) : Mr. S. Hoque, Advocate

¶16

For the respondent (s) : Mr. D. Gogoi, Advocate Ms. G. Hazarika, Advocate Mr. B. J. Talukdar, Advocate

¶17

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R

¶18

16.08.2024

¶19

Heard Mr. S. Hoque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department; Mr. B. J. Talukdar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.5.

¶20

The petitioner in the instant proceedings has challenged the communication dated 02.03.2024 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Nalbari whereby the said official had directed the Circle Officer, Nalbari Revenue Circle to seal the premises of the petitioner as well as to take necessary steps for lodging of an FIR of criminal nature of acts and to take necessary action for compliance on the provisions of the prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. promulgated vide the office order dated 29.02.2024. In pursuant thereto, the petitioner was informed by the Circle Officer, Nalbari that the premises of its brick kiln establishment would be sealed for violation of the Assam Brick Kilns Establishment and Regulation Rules, 2013. Thereupon, the petitioner

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

submitted the representation to the respondent authorities, more particularly to the respondent No.2, however did not receive any favourable result and consequently the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

¶23

It is seen from the record that notice was issued on 31.05.2024 and the respondents were directed to apprise this Court as to whether the Assam Brick Kilns Establishment Regulation Rules, 2013 have been published and have been given due effect. It is further seen that on various occasions, this Court had granted opportunities to the respondent authorities to place as to whether the Assam Brick Kilns Establishment Rules, 2013 have been notified or not by way of an Official Gazette. Nothing has been placed before this Court inspite of various opportunities. It is however relevant to take note of at this stage that on 14.08.2024, when the matter was listed, this Court adjourned the matter to be taken up today, in view of the Standing Counsel of the Pollution Control Board having not appeared on 14.08.2024. Today also none has appeared on behalf of the Pollution Control Board of Assam.

¶24

This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. The impugned order is based upon certain enquiry report regarding violation of the norms of the Assam Brick Kilns Establishment and Regulation Rules, 2013. As the respondents have failed to show that the said Assam Brick Kilns Establishment and Regulation Rules, 2013 had come into force inspite of various opportunities, the impugned order dated 02.03.2024 which is based upon the Assam Brick Kilns Establishment and Regulation Rules, 2013 cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

¶25

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.03.2024 is therefore set

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

aside and quashed.

¶28

All consequential actions taken on the basis of the said impugned order dated 02.03.2024 is also set aside and quashed. The respondent No.3 is further directed to remove the sealing of the premises of the petitioner which was done on the basis of the impugned order dated 02.03.2024. The same has to be done forthwith and not later than 15 days from the date of service of the certified copy of the instant order to the Respondent No.2.

¶29

Before parting with the record, this Court however observes and directs that the order so passed herein shall not preclude the Pollution Control Board, Assam to take such action as envisaged under the extant laws.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Parbin Sultana v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Parbin Sultana v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

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

M/S H.R Enterprise Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Prabhati Dhodrai Vs the State of Assam and 11 Ors.

Sukrita Mohan Pandit Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Uttam Kumar Sarda and 19 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Puniram Hazarika Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Central Bank of India Vs the State of Assam and Anr.