Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33392-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5139 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Shree Balaji Processors Thru Proprietor Amit Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Environment Forests And Climate Change Deptt. Lko And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Sachan,Deepak Kumar Pandey,Gaurav Singh,Piyush Agnihotri,Sachin Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Verma Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2. 2. The averments made in the writ petition indicate that on a complaint case being registered before the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi directions were issued to the U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow for taking action against the industries which were not complying with the norms of clearance for carrying out the industrial activities. 3. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it is pointed out that pursuant to the direction issued by the N.G.T. necessary inspection of the industry was carried out and a show cause notice on the basis of inspection report is stated to have been issued to the petitioner resulting into passing of the impugned order contained in annexure no.16 whereby a closure order of the industry as well as the revocation of its consent to operate has been passed. 4. Besides above, the environmental compensation to the tune of Rs.4,60,000/- has been imposed to the petitioner for violation of the conditions of the CTO. 5. A preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the State to the effect that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the N.G.T. by filing appropriate application in the same proceedings in which a direction was issued for conducting inspection in respect of the industry in question and regarding which a report on being found adverse has become the basis for issuance of the order of closure as well as the revocation of the C.T.O. 6. This apart, the petitioner as against the order aforesaid passed on 21.10.2024 has an alternative remedy under Section 28 and Section 33B of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has though submitted that a copy of the show cause notice was not issued to him before passing of the impugned order but all these aspects being a question of fact ought to have been raised by him before the N.G.T where the proceedings were drawn against him in Original Application No.586 of 2023 and Execution Application No.18 of 2024. 8. It is not pleaded by the petitioner in the present writ petition that he not being a party to any proceedings has not been afforded due opportunity as postulated under the statute. 9. Once the petitioner was himself a party before the N.G.T in the aforesaid proceedings and subsequent thereto he had also participated in the inspection undertaken by the U.P. Pollution Control Board pursuant to the direction issued by the N.G.T, it cannot be said that no opportunity, before taking the action of closure or revocation of the CTO, was afforded to the petitioner. 10. Be that as it may once the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under the statute and the matter involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact, we decline to entertain the present writ petition with the liberty open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the aforesaid order to the extent of closure and revocation of the CTO under the respective provisions of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 12. Insofar as the imposition of environmental compensation upon the petitioner by means of the impugned order is concerned, a similar controversy is already engaging the attention of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions leading writ petition being Writ-C No.151 of 2024, wherein judgment has been reserved. While reserving the judgement, the Court has granted protection of interim stay against realization of environmental compensation by the authorities to this extent. 13. In the aforesaid conspectus, while rejecting the present writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy insofar as the order of closure and revocation of C.T.O is concerned, we provide that the protection of stay shall be available to the present petitioner insofar as the imposition of environment compensation is concerned which shall abide by the decision of this Court in the bunch of writ petitions leading case number Writ-C. No.151 of 2024. (Jaspreet Singh,J. ) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Shahnaz Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench