The NGT dismissed an original application filed by Deepak Rai, characterizing it as a gross abuse of process of law due to allegations based on incorrect facts and non-disclosure of previous related applications, ordering costs against the applicant.
Application dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by Deepak Rai within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Item No. 24 Court No. 2
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No.395/2024
Deepak Rai Applicant Versus State of U.P. Respondent
Date of hearing: 13.08.2024
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant(s): None
Respondent(s): Ms. Sthavi Asthana, Advocate for UPPCB (through VC)
ORDER
Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’ ), was registered on a letter petition dated 21.09.2023 sent by Deepak Rai, son of Lallan Rai, Village Suchitpur, Development Block Muftiganj, Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur, U.P., in exercise of suo-moto jurisdiction in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401.
1
Proprietor, Ajit Vikram Singh, is operating in violation of siting criteria provided in “The Uttar Pradesh Brick Kilns (Siting Criteria for Establishment) Rules, 2012” and also without obtaining any Statutory Consent under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Air Act, 1981’ ). Complainant approached several authorities making complaint of illegal operation of above brick kiln but no action was taken by concerned authorities.
2
UPPCB, hence, a show cause notice was issued by UPPCB under Section 31A of Air Act, 1981 vide letter dated 22.11.2023, directing the brick kiln owner of “M/s Gagan Int Udyog” to show cause as to why it should not be closed and its other permissions and licenses be not required to be cancelled.
3
800/2023, Deepak Rai vs. State of UP & Ors. , raising a grievance against illegal operation of “M/s Gagan Brick Industry” at village Dekvali, Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur. OA 800/2023 (supra) was disposed of vide order dated 05.01.2024 with the direction to Member Secretary, UPPCB to take expeditious action.
2. The plea of the Applicant is that Respondent No. 5 was violating the norms and was not adhering to the siting guidelines, i.e., Uttar Pradesh Brick Kiln (Siting Criteria for Establishment) Rules, 2012 and was operating without ‘Consent to Establish’ (CTE) and ‘Consent to Operate’ (CTO) from the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB). Therefore, Applicant had earlier filed OA No. 800/2023 which was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 05.01.2024 by observing as under:
4
“xxx…………………………xxx……………………………………xxx
2. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has pointed out that the regional officer of UPPCB at Varanasi vide letter Ref. No. 1720/IGRS/23-24 dated 25.10.2023 had written to the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) about the running of the respondent no. 5 in violation of the citing criteria and also in violation of the said order.
3. The grievance is that no action has been taken by the UPPCB on the communication of the RO.
4. We are of the view that once the communication has been sent by the RO then Member Secretary, UPPCB is duly required to consider the said communication and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
5. Hence, at this stage no interference in this OA is required. The original application is disposed of expecting that the Member Secretary, UPPCB will take expeditious action in accordance with law on the communication dated 25.10.2023.”
3. The grievance of the Applicant in this OA is that inspite of the order of the Tribunal dated 05.01.2024 in OA No. 800/2023, no action has been taken by the authorities and on account of lack of co-ordination between Respondent No. 3 – UPPCB and Respondent No. 4 – District Magistrate, Jaunpur, the Unit – Respondent No. 5 was still operating. The Applicant had made representation to different authorities and, thereafter, had approached the Tribunal with the present OA.
4. In the OA, Applicant has placed reliance upon the letter dated 25.10.2023 issued by the Regional Officer of UPPCB at Varanasi, the recommendation/report of the same authority to the Chief Environment Officer (Circle-VI), State PCB, Lucknow dated 25.10.2023 and the inspection dated 22.10.2023 wherein the Respondent No. 5 was stated to be operating in violation of norms especially the siting criteria.
5. The Tribunal considering the grievance of the Applicant on 15.05.2024 had issued notice to the respondents for filing their response atleast one week before the date of hearing fixed today.
6. Response only from the UPPCB has been received on 27.07.2024. A perusal of the said response reveals that the closure order dated 10.01.2024 was passed under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 with the direction to
5
the respective District Magistrates and District Heads of Police for implementation of the closure order against the brick kiln – Respondent No. 5 because the brick kiln was found to be operating without CTO under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The reply of UPPCB also states that a Five Member Committee was constituted by the District Magistrate on 18.01.2024 for compliance of the closure order and in pursuance thereto, the closure order was complied with as reflected in the report of the Committee dated 07.03.2024. The reply further reflects that on 15.07.2024 the RO, UPPCB had carried out the inspection of Respondent No. 5 and the brick kiln was found to be closed. The conclusion of the report of UPPCB summarizes the position as under:
“ Conclusion
The brick kiln namely M/s Gagan Int Udyog (R.S. Marka), Village-Devkali, Tehsil-Kerakat, District-Jaunpur has not obtained valid 'Consent to Operate' (CTO) form UPPCB UPPCB had issued closure order against the brick kiln under the section-31A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (As amended) vide letter Dated-10.01.2024. For ensuring the compliance of closure order, the Joint Committee constituted by District Administration, Jaunpur vide Letter dated 18.01.2024 had stopped the operation of brick kiln on dated 07.03.2024. Further, UPPCB has also requested to S.H.O. (Police), Keraket, Jaunpur vide letter dated-21.05.2024 for ensuring the compliance of closure order issued against the brick kiln. Presently, the operation of brick kiln was found closed during site visit on dated 15.07.2024 by UPPCB official.”
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the UPPCB has submitted that until and unless Respondent No. 5 complies with all the requisite norms, it will not be permitted to operate.
8. Learned Counsel for State has also submitted that the District Magistrates, Jaunpur will extend full cooperation in complying with the orders of the UPPCB.
9. In view of the above subsequent development, the grievance of the Applicant stands redressed and nothing further is required to be done in this OA which is accordingly disposed of.”
incorrect facts and making allegations in respect of brick-kiln “M/s R S Int Udyog” which has not been found to be operating on Gata No.583,
6
area 1.169 hectares since on the said land, “M/s Gagan Int Udyog” was operating.
Sudhir Agarwal, JM
Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM
August 13, 2024 Original Application No.395/2024 M
7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an original application based on misrepresented facts regarding the operational status of a brick kiln should be entertained.
Whether the applicant failed to disclose prior pending or disposed applications regarding the same pituitary concern.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita SinhaExplained¶11
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401 · Who else cites this
OA 544/2024, Deepak Rai vs. State of UPExplained¶26
OA 544/2024, Deepak Rai vs. State of UP
OA 800/2023, Deepak Rai vs. State of UP & Ors.Explained¶29
OA 800/2023, Deepak Rai vs. State of UP & Ors.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Deepak Rai
State of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
Afroz Ahmad
As recorded by the court registry
An original application before a tribunal, most commonly a service dispute before the Central or a State Administrative Tribunal.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
