CWP-18070-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Shankar Batha Gram Udyog Mandal, Village Mohangarh (Chhapra), Tehsil and District Jind State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. changed from conventional fuel of coal to agricultural/biomass f in the year 2021, refers to various observations made by the National Green Tribunal in its order vide order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P petitioner uses safer an kiln, it should be allowed to operate the brick kiln beyond four months, i.e. beyond June 30, every year. 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/s Shankar Batha Gram Udyog Mandal, Village Mohangarh (Chhapra), Tehsil and District Jind Versus Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Divya Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI, for respondents No.4 and 5. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The petitioner, who is a brick kiln proprietor and claims to have changed from conventional fuel of coal to agricultural/biomass f in the year 2021, refers to various observations made by the National Green Tribunal in its order dated 17.02.2021 (Annexure P vide order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P petitioner uses safer and pollution free source of fuel for operating the brick kiln, it should be allowed to operate the brick kiln beyond four months, i.e. beyond June 30, every year. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18070-2025 Date of decision : 04.07.2025 M/s Shankar Batha Gram Udyog Mandal, Village Mohangarh (Chhapra), …….Petitioner ...….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Divya Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI, ( Oral ) e petitioner, who is a brick kiln proprietor and claims to have changed from conventional fuel of coal to agricultural/biomass fuel sometime in the year 2021, refers to various observations made by the National Green dated 17.02.2021 (Annexure P-2) and the Apex Court vide order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-3), to contend that since the source of fuel for operating the brick kiln, it should be allowed to operate the brick kiln beyond four months, i.e. 2025 .2025 M/s Shankar Batha Gram Udyog Mandal, Village Mohangarh (Chhapra), …….Petitioner ...….Respondents e petitioner, who is a brick kiln proprietor and claims to have uel sometime in the year 2021, refers to various observations made by the National Green 2) and the Apex Court 3), to contend that since the source of fuel for operating the brick kiln, it should be allowed to operate the brick kiln beyond four months, i.e. NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.08 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18070-2025 2. having perused the documents dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure P Control Board, in respect of the petitioner, had considered the said aspect of permitting or not the use of biomass briquettes and the period prescribed and decided thus : Committee was of the view that Brick Kiln with biomass briquettes & agriculture residue as fuel cannot be allowed to operate beyond 30.06.20 deal with said issues and unit may approach Hon’ble NGT/CAQM/MOEF as per legal provisions. of the committee to the unit along with the intimation about the order dated 13.05 Supreme Court has already mentioned about the agriculture residue used in brick kilns and time granted upto 30.06.2023 in NCR area.” 3. never been communicated to cannot be treated as decision of the State Board. 4. 15.11.2023 (Annexure P had taken a decision tha beyond 30.06.2023 cannot be allowed. 4.1 petitioner. The said decision (Prevention and Control of 2025 After having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and having perused the documents annexed with the petition, in particular dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure P-9), it appears that the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, in respect of the petitioner, had considered the said aspect of permitting or not the use of biomass briquettes and the period prescribed and decided thus : “After considering the above referred orders, Committee was of the view that Brick Kiln with biomass briquettes & agriculture residue as fuel cannot be allowed to operate beyond 30.06.2023 as HSPCB has no preview to deal with said issues and unit may approach Hon’ble NGT/CAQM/MOEF as per legal provisions. Further, you are also asked to convey the decision of the committee to the unit along with the intimation about the order dated 13.05.2022 (copy enclosed) Supreme Court has already mentioned about the agriculture residue used in brick kilns and time granted upto 30.06.2023 in NCR area.” Learned counsel, however, contends that the said decision has never been communicated to the petitioner and also that the said decision cannot be treated as decision of the State Board. After having minutely examined the communication dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure P-9), it is obvious that had taken a decision that request of the petitioner for operating brick kiln beyond 30.06.2023 cannot be allowed. The decision taken is certainly adverse to the interest of the petitioner. The said decision is clearly a decision taken under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 -2- After having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and annexed with the petition, in particular letter 9), it appears that the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, in respect of the petitioner, had considered the said aspect of permitting or not the use of biomass briquettes and agriculture residue beyond “After considering the above referred orders, Committee was of the view that Brick Kiln with biomass briquettes & agriculture residue as fuel cannot be allowed 23 as HSPCB has no preview to deal with said issues and unit may approach Hon’ble NGT/CAQM/MOEF as per legal provisions. Further, you are also asked to convey the decision of the committee to the unit along with the intimation about .2022 (copy enclosed) wherein Supreme Court has already mentioned about the agriculture residue used in brick kilns and time granted upto counsel, however, contends that the said decision has the petitioner and also that the said decision cannot be treated as decision of the State Board. After having minutely examined the communication dated 9), it is obvious that Committee of the State Board t request of the petitioner for operating brick kiln The decision taken is certainly adverse to the interest of the is clearly a decision taken under the Air Pollution) Act, 1981, where under Section 31 (“Air After having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and letter 9), it appears that the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, in respect of the petitioner, had considered the said aspect of agriculture residue beyond counsel, however, contends that the said decision has the petitioner and also that the said decision After having minutely examined the communication dated ommittee of the State Board t request of the petitioner for operating brick kiln The decision taken is certainly adverse to the interest of the is clearly a decision taken under the Air (“Air NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.08 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18070-2025 Act”, for brevity) Appellate Authority and thereafter before the NGT. 4.2 environment, for which a specialized Tribunal has been constituted the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which needs to be approached by the petitioner. 5. relegates the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Air Act, which if availed within a period of 30 days from today along with a copy of this order, shall be considered and decided expeditiousl merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. 6. July 04, 2025 narotam Whether Whether reportable 2025 Act”, for brevity) orders passed by the State Board are appealable before the Appellate Authority and thereafter before the NGT. This Court is not equipped with expertise in respect of field of environment, for which a specialized Tribunal has been constituted the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which needs to be approached by the Accordingly, this Court, declini relegates the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Air Act, which if availed within a period of 30 days from today along with a copy of this order, shall be considered and decided expeditiousl merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. Petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- orders passed by the State Board are appealable before the Appellate Authority and thereafter before the NGT. This Court is not equipped with expertise in respect of field of environment, for which a specialized Tribunal has been constituted the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which needs to be approached by the Accordingly, this Court, declining interference, at the very outset relegates the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Air Act, which if availed within a period of 30 days from today along with a copy of this order, shall be considered and decided expeditiously on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. Petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty. Petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SANJIV BERRY ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No orders passed by the State Board are appealable before the This Court is not equipped with expertise in respect of field of environment, for which a specialized Tribunal has been constituted the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which needs to be approached by the ng interference, at the very outset relegates the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Air Act, which if availed within a period of 30 days from today along with a y on its own NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.08 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment