HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 12008 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, what we find is that the disputed questions of fact are involved and notice was served upon the appellant to which he submitted a reply but only sought further time to submit the reply, therefore, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there is a statutory remedy under Section 31 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as the order of closure passed under Section 31A is appealable under the aforesaid provision. 3. In view of above, the petition is dismissed with liberty to avail aforesaid remedy. December 10, 2025 Raj Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jalaj Kumar Gupta, Mehdi Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Verma, Chandra Shekhar Pandey (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) R.R.Civiltech Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Thru Authorised Signatory Anuj Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Environment Forests And Climate Change Deptt. Lko And Ors. .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench