HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 5792 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel representing the U.P. Pollution Control Board, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. 2. The petitioner, who is the complainant, has filed the instant petition seeking a direction to the respondents to comply with the order dated 12.6.2018 passed by the Chief Environmental Officer, Circle-II, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow. 3. Earlier the matter was heard at length on 15.7.2025 and following order was passed:- "1. The instant writ petition has been filed with request to issue direction to the respondents to comply with the order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the Chief Environmental Officer, Circle-II, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow (respondent no.2). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.4, who is proprietor of M/s Kajal Eit Udyog, Bohanna, Kot-Dakshin, Handia, District Prayagraj, is carrying out the operation of the brick kiln at the site in violation of Uttar Pradesh Brick Kilns (Siting Criteria for Establishment) Rules, 2012 (in short, Rules, 2012) and the orders issued by the Central Pollution Control Board. On the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Surendra Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent(s) : J. N. Maurya, Anand Kumar Singh, C.S.C., Dinesh Kumar Singh Sanjay Kumar Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) spot, he is causing pollution without no objection certificate by the U.P. Pollution Control Board. The officers of the U.P. Pollution Control Board have utterly failed to discharge their obligation under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (in short, Act, 1981) read with Rules, 2012. 3. Shri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel, who also represents the U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow, has placed detailed instruction, which has been taken on record. He submits that initially, a show cause notice was given to respondent no.4 on 27.04.2018 as he was running the brick kiln in violation of the Act, 1981. Later on, an inspection was carried out on 17.05.2018 and finally, in view of provisions contained under Section 31-A of the Act, 1981, the closure order was also passed on 12.06.2018. In the year 2019, twice inspections were carried out, and on the spot, the respondent no.4 was found not running the brick kiln. He further apprises to the Court that against the closure order dated 12.06.2018, the respondent no.4 had also instituted proceeding under Section 37 of the Act, 1981 before learned Judicial Magistrate (Pollution), U.P. Lucknow, which has been registered as Complaint Case No.2162 of 2019 ( U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. M/s Kajal Eit Udyog, Bohanna, IKot-Dakshin, Handia, District Prayagraj), in which the next date is fixed on 02.08.2025. 4. Considering the factual situation, we direct that the District Magistrate, Prayagraj may depute an officer not below to the rank of Additional District Magistrate to carry out the spot inspection alongwith the District level officer of U.P. Pollution Control Board and the report be submitted on the next date through Shri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel. 5. Put up this matter again as fresh on 30.07.2025 for further orders." 4. In response thereof, Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent-U.P. Pollution Control Board has placed before us the detailed instructions, which is taken on record. He submits that in response to the aforesaid direction, the District Magistrate had constituted a two member inspection team consisting of Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Prayagraj and Assistant Environment Engineer, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Prayagraj who had carried out the inspection at the spot and submitted their report on 25.7.2025. It transpires from the report dated 25.7.2025 that at the time of inspection, the respondent no. 4 WRIC No. 5792 of 2025 2 was not running the brick kiln. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the inspection report, we find that the complaint of the petitioner which is pending consideration before the Authority concerned, the same would be decided as per law. Suffice to indicate that without consent to operate the brick kiln, the respondent no. 4 may not be permitted to carry out any activity on the spot. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. September 18, 2025 Kirti WRIC No. 5792 of 2025 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad