Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 110837 (ALL)

RAM NARESH SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/41139/2024 · 2025-03-16

Manoj Kumar Gupta, S Q H Rizvi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37186-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41139 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Naresh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Nath Tripathi,Sarthak Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. The prayer made in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution is for a direction to the respondent-Authorities to take appropriate action against respondent no.4. 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent no.4 is a brick kiln, which is being run illegally without having any valid permission. Respondent no.4 was also issued show-cause notice on 22.08.2024. 3. On 18.02.2025, the following order was passed: "1. Despite time having been granted to learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions, he submits that the respondents have not provided instructions. 2. Learned counsel for U.P. Pollution Control Board submits that the Board has already recommended for closure of the brick-kiln of respondent no. 4 and now the order is to be implemented by respondent no.2. 3. We direct respondent no.2 to file his affidavit and disclose his stand in respect of the said submission and also the action, if any, is taken by him in this behalf. 4. Put up as fresh on 17.03.2025. 5. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel will communicate the instant order to respondent no.2 for proper compliance." 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 submits that the aforesaid statement was made on basis of a communication dated 22.08.2024 annexed alongwith writ petition wherein respondent no.4 was directed to forthwith stop the operation of the brick kiln failing which appropriate recommendation would be made for penal action/prosecution being launched against it. 5. The District Magistrate has filed his affidavit in pursuance of the order dated 18.02.2025. The stand taken in the affidavit is that on inspection made by Naib Tehsildar, the unit was found closed. It was reported that it was not running since last six months. Further, Environmental Engineer, Incharge, Sector-6 has issued show-cause notice dated 24.02.2025 to respondent no.4 under Section 31A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is stated that as soon as any closure order is passed by U.P. Pollution Control Board, the same would be duly enforced. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 states that proceedings initiated on basis of the aforesaid show-cause notice would be taken to its logical conclusion. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid stand of respondents no.2 and 3, we dispose of the instant petition by providing that the proceedings initiated against respondent no.4 be taken to its logical conclusion strictly in accordance with law expeditiously. (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad