HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10627 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents, Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 and Sri Chandra Shekher Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.5. 2. Sri Kirti Raj Singh, Advocate who has prayed for opportunity to intervene in the matter on the ground that Unnao Floor Mill is the neighboring unit and has been referred to in the order impugned as being one of the reasons and cancellation of the consent given on 07.08.2025. 3. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to set the aside order bearing Reference no.220764/UPPCB/Unnao (UPPCBRO)/CTE/UNNAO/2 024 dated 08.08.2025 contained as Annexure No. 2, and restore order bearing Reference no. 220764/UPPCB/Unnao (UPPCBRO)/CTE/UNNAO/2024 dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure No. 3)." 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of G.S.R. 85(E), copy of which has been filed as Annexure no.4 to the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jalaj Kumar Gupta, Mehdi Khan, Mohd. Aslam Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Verma, Chandra Shekher Pandey M/S J.K. Agro Industries Unit 2 Thru Partner Arif Khan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Forest, Environment And Climate Change And Ors. .....Respondent(s) writ petition, that while giving detailed criteria for establishment of Industrial Plant and for grant no objection certificate. It also states in paragraph 13 (3) that before refusing or cancelling a consent, a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to the person concerned. No reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The petitioner had proposed to establish a new unit relating to processing and boiling of tannery waste flashing. Initially, a consent was given to establish a new unit, under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended from time to time and the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended, on 07.08.2025 but on 08.08.2025 i.e. the very next day, the order impugned has been issued. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 & 3, Sri A. K. Verma has pointed out that the petitioner has statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the writ petition should not be ordinarily entertained where statutory remedy is provided. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the case rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (1998) 8 SCC 1 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that even where statutory remedy is provided under the Act, if there is a violation of principles of natural justice then the Court has a discretion to either entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. 7. It has been argued that it is apparent from the order dated 07.08.2025 and 08.08.2025 that the order dated 08.08.2025 cancelling the consent was issued the very next day without giving opportunity of hearing. 8. Sri A. K. Verma, Advocate could not dispute the argument raised regarding non-affording of opportunity, but he submits that the order dated 07.08.2025 was issued due to a clerical error, and therefore, once the error was discovered, the order was cancelled the very next day. 9. We are of the opinion that once an order is issued and it is communicated also to a party, it creates a right in favour of that party and without opportunity of hearing it could not have been cancelled. WRIC No. 10627 of 2025 2 10. We are therefore set aside the order impugned with a direction to the respondent no. 2 & 3 to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within a week from the date a copy of this order is communicated to them and the petitioner shall submit its reply within a period of two weeks, thereafter. The respondents no. 2 & 3/Competent Authority shall take an appropriate decision by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three weeks from such submission of reply. It shall be open for the respondents no.2 & 3 to also hear all other persons who wish to object to the prayer for grant of permission/consent to the petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. November 10, 2025 Darpan Sharma WRIC No. 10627 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench