Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21649-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No.32) Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4198 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Ayan Brick Field Through Its Proprietor Mohd. Nasir And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Basharat Ali Khan,Deena Nath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J. N. Maurya,Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri B.A. Khan for the petitioners, Sri Mehul Khare, learned counsel for respondents no.5 and 6, Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4 and Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for respondent no.7. With their consent, the instant petition is being decided finally at this stage without inviting any formal counter affidavit. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 06.01.2025 passed by respondent no.6 cancelling the consent to operate brick-kiln in the name of M/S Ayan Brick Field situated at Village- Lohra, Post- Maghan, Tehsil Chayal, District Kaushambi. The order records that the petitioners were issued a notice dated 25.11.2024 seeking explanation in reference to an inspection made by Scientific Assistant dated 25.03.2024, failing which the consent to operate order would be liable to revocation. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 24.12.2024 and since it was not supported by any solid evidence / ground / information and therefore, it has been found to be unacceptable and accordingly the consent to operate has been cancelled. 4. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel submits that one of the grounds for cancellation is regarding alleged violation of the sitement norms prescribed by Uttar Pradesh Brick Kilns (Siting Criteria for Establishment) Rules, 2012. It is urged that the said controversy is in issue in Writ Petition No. 38987 of 2024 at the behest of the petitioner and an interim order is operating in favour of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the same could not have been made a ground for cancellation of the consent to operate. 5. The other ground that the ladder on the chimney was not found at the time of inspection is wholly incorrect and the petitioner in para 4 of its reply has specifically controverted the said allegation and has stated that the ladder is in place and other compliances have also been duly made and duly reported. It is urged that the explanation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected in a mechanical manner by observing that it is unsustainable without recording any reason therefor. 6. Sri Mehul Khare, learned counsel for respondents no. 5 and 6 is in receipt of written instructions and he admits that one of the grounds on basis of which the 'consent to operate' order has been revoked is alleged non-fulfillment of the siting criteria. He concedes that the said issue is sub judice in the earlier petition and an interim order is operating in favour of the petitioner. He also is not in a position to show from the impugned order that explanation submitted by the petitioner was even considered or any reason was recorded in holding the same to be unsustainable. 7. It is well settled that when an explanation has been furnished by a party against whom any action is proposed, the Authority has to apply its mind to the same and in case the same is being rejected, to record reasons therefor. In the impugned order, we find that there is no real application of mind and in a very perfunctory manner, the impugned order has been passed simply observing that the reply was not supported by sufficient evidence. 8. Sri Mehul Khare, learned counsel for respondents no. 5 and 6 prays for liberty to pass a fresh order. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 is hereby quashed leaving it open to the respondent-Authority to pass fresh order taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and in light of the observations made hereinabove. It shall be open to the petitioner to supplement its reply within two weeks and also file documentary and other evidence, if so advised along with the supplementary representation. The fresh order shall be passed after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. The instant petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Ashish Pd. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad