Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47839 (ALL)

M/S RAMPAL STONE WORKS, SONBHADRA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIC/12535/2025 · 2025-04-24

Anish Kumar Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63494-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12535 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Rampal Stone Works, Sonbhadra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J. N. Maurya,Sarthak Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 24.6.2021 suspending the consent to operate order dated 18.11.2020 and calling for explanation from the petitioner within fifteen days. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not aware of the said order. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 17206 of 2024 for quashing of the sealing order and in the said petition, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner from the instructions placed on record by U.P. Pollution Control Board that impugned order was passed suspending the consent to operate. The said writ petition was therefore got withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order dated 24.6.2021, impugned herein. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation after coming to know of the suspension order. However, the same has not been decided so far. 4. Sri Sarthak Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.P. Pollution Control Board submits that the representation said to have been filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the suspension order, has not been received. He points out that the representation does not even mention the date on which it was filed, nor there is any evidence annexed with the writ petition to indicate when it was filed. 5. Without going into the said controversy, we dispose of the instant petition by providing that the representation which is annexed as Annexure-10, or any further reply as the petitioner may submit within two weeks before respondent no. 3, be decided by respondent no. 3 by a speaking order, after due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order will abide by the decision that would be taken by respondent no. 3 on the representation of the petitioner. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad