Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 157051 (ALL)

M/S ENT UDHYOG THRU ITS OWNERS SURESH CHANDRA AND MUKUL SHAKYA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF ENVIRONMENT FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE LKO AND ORS.

WRIC/7645/2025 · 2025-08-28

Manjive Shukla, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 7645 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Piyush Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Pollution Control Board. 2. This Court after hearing the parties counsels had passed an order on 21.08.2025 which is extracted here-in-below: "1. The petitioner claims to have paid the environment compensation imposed upon it vide order dated 14.2.2023, which was to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/-, in spite of it he says that another letter dated 24.4.2025 has been issued demanding the said amount of Rs. 1,75,000/-. As regards challenge to another order dated 8.1.2024 he says that he has not been served the copy but the order dated 24.4.2025 mentions that by the said order dated 8.1.2024 an amount of Rs.9,87, 500/- has been imposed as environment compensation. 2. Let the counsel for the Board seek instructions subject to the remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 3. List this case in the next week as fresh. " 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Pollution Control Board has very fairly admitted that the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- has wrongly been included in the order dated 24.04.2025 as the said amount has already been paid by the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Piyush Pathak, Ashutosh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Verma M/S Ent Udhyog Thru Its Owners Suresh Chandra And Mukul Shakya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Environment Forests And Climate Change Lko And Ors. .....Respondent(s) 4. We find that since the petitioner had already paid Rs.1,75,000/- as directed by the impugned order dated 14.02.2023 and that amount had wrongly been included in the order dated 24.04.2025, therefore, this writ petition to the extent of challenge to the order dated 14.02.2023 has lost its relevance. So far as the other amount i.e. Rs.9,87,500/- imposed vide order dated 08.01.2024, which sought to be recovered vide order dated 24.04.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not provided copy of the order dated 08.01.2024 but Shri Verma has right now given the copy of the said order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Since the order dated 08.01.2024 is appealable before the State Government under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority. August 28, 2025 akhilesh/- WRIC No. 7645 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench