Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010253572024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6417/2024 MINAJUL ALAM S/O- MAJIBUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ROWMARI, P.O.- SOLMARI, SADAR NAGAON, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM 2:THE CHAIRMAN POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21 3:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NAGAON SADAR REVENUE CIRCLE NAGAON ASSAM 5:SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O- HUSSAIN ALI VILLAGE- ROWMARI P.O.- SOLMARI PIN- 782002 DIST NAGAO Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY, MR F Z MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, MR. S BARUAH, SC, PCBA,MR. S BARUAH (R- 2),MS A HUSSAIN (R-5),S AHMED(R-5),GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 15.12.2025 Heard Shri FZ Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department; Shri S. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Pollution Control Board (PCB); Ms. M. Barman, learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 and Ms. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 2. Considering the subject matter involved and the prayer made in the writ petition, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of permission to the respondent no. 5 to construct a brick kiln in the locality where the petitioner resides. It is the case of the petitioner that the said construction has been done in violation of the guidelines under the “Assam Brick Kilns Establishment and Regulation Rules, 2013”. It is submitted that the consent to operate the same has been obtained by the respondent no. 5 in an illegal manner and for which the petitioner and the other persons in the locality are suffering. 4. Shri Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that initially the matter was tried to be espoused by way of filing a Public Interest Litigation which however was disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a representation. However, the said representation, though filed, has not been considered and disposed of. Page No.# 3/4 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in PIL/57/2024 instituted by the present petitioner in which a liberty was granted to the petitioner while withdrawing the said PIL. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the representation dated 28.10.2024 submitted before the Chairman, PCB which is yet to be considered and disposed of. 6. Shri Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, PCB has however submitted that consent to operate are given by following the due process of law and the allegation does not appear to have any substance. He has also submitted that the entire basis of filing the writ petition which is a notification, namely, “Assam Brick Kilns Establishment and Regulation Rules, 2013” is non-existing. 7. Ms. Hussain, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has strenuously objected to the prayer made in the petition and has submitted that the brick kiln has been established by following all the necessary formalities. She has also submitted that affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on 11.03.2025. 8. In his rejoinder, Shri Mazumder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that reply affidavit has been filed on 30.07.2025. 9. It is not in dispute that the representation dated 28.10.2024 is yet to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. This Court has also noted the observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in its order dated 24.10.2024 passed in PIL/57/2024 instituted by the petitioner whereby a liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a representation by which, it becomes imperative on the part of the Chairman, Pollution Control Board to consider and dispose of the said representation. At the same time, since the consequence of deciding such representation may affect the respondent no. 5, it is also required Page No.# 4/4 that while considering the same, the respondent no. 5 is required to be given a notice and opportunity of hearing. 10. To expedite the matter and since the respondent no. 5 is contesting the writ petition, the said respondent no. 5 is granted 15 days time to file his reply to the representation dated 28.10.2024 before respondent no. 2 - the Chairman, Pollution Control Board whereafter the said respondent no. 2 shall consider and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law. While making such consideration, the stakeholders i.e. the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 be given an opportunity of hearing so as to enable them to place their respective cases. 11. The entire exercise be conducted and completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the reply by the respondent no. 5. It is however made clear that if no reply is filed by the respondent no 5 within the said period of 15 days, the Chairman, PCB would go ahead with the consideration and disposal of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. 12. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant