Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20369-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2373 of 2025 Petitioner :- Khushnuma Brick Field Through Its Proprietor Sri Sahadat Ali Respondent :- Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajey Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Verma Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf the U.P. Pollution Control Board. 2. Consolidated Consent to Operate the brick klin has been refused by an order passed on 28.1.2025 on the premise that closure order of the petitioner's brick klin had already been passed on 12.4.2019, therefore, the subsequent order of Consolidated Consent to Operate issued on 9.9.2020 was issued in oblivion of the said bar. 3. This Court vide order dated 7.4.2025 directed the U.P. Pollution Control Board to produce a complete copy of the record particularly the order dated 12.4.2019 which has been filed before us along-with the supplementary affidavit. Although the order dated 12.4.2019 makes a mention of the same plot i.e. plot no. 85 but the same relates to another brick field which was operated in the name of M/s Dil Bahar Brick Field(Sona Marka). 4. On a pointed query made to learned counsel for the respondent i.e. U.P. Pollution Control Board as to how such a premise would be valid for refusal of the grant of the CTO in favour of the appellant particularly when the same was granted on 9.9.2020, the position remains unclear. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board has conceded that before passing the impugned order refusing to grant the CTO in favour of the petitioner on the alleged premise, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner without which the reason spelt out in the order does not stand in the eye of law. 6. Having regard to the submissions put-forth before us on behalf of the petitioner and the fact that no opportunity whatsoever on the premise set out in the impugned order was granted to him, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the opposite party i.e. U.P. Pollution Control Board to take a fresh decision on the application of the petitioner for grant of Consolidated Consent to Operate. In the event of any impediment coming in the way of grant of Consolidated Consent to Operate, he shall be apprised of the reason at the earliest so that the necessary explanation, if any, may be offered by him for concluding and deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. 7. This exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of the order is filed. 8. The writ petion is accordingly disposed of. . [Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 10.4.2025 kanhaiya Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench