Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22556 (ALL)

LAL PRATAP v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/6152/2025 · 2025-04-21

Anish Kumar Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60369-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** (Sl No.64) Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6152 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lal Pratap Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sakshi Patel,Shiv Naresh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Somya Chaturvedi Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The prayer made in the instant petition is for issuing directions to the respondents to restrain the manufacturing of bricks by respondent no.4 and take action against the said respondent on basis of the representations made by the petitioner on 15.01.2025 and 31.01.2025. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of Writ C No. 12038 of 2016 (Lal Pratap vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) and it was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make complaint to the U.P. Pollution Control Board, Varanasi and in the event any complaint is made, the same would be decide by the concerned Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner initiated a contempt proceedings and in which the respondents filed an affidavit taking the stand that they have issued a closure order dated 31.08.2016, on basis of an inspection dated 11.04.2016. Respondent No. 4 has now again resumed the operation of the Brick Kiln and therefore, it should be stopped. 3. Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board states that the previous closure order was passed on ground of certain irregularities observed in the inspection. After the same were removed, fresh conditional consent to operate was granted in favour of respondent no.4 on 21.04.2022 and the same is valid upto 31.07.2026. She further states that on basis of the said consent to operate order, respondent no. 4 is entitled to run the Brick Kiln. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the said factual position. 5. In view of the same we decline to issue any direction for closure and leave it open to the petitioner to approach the Authorities in case he has any other grievance left. 6. The petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) ) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad