2025:UHC:4909-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMB 366/2025 WPMB 367/2025 WPMB 368/2025 WPMB 369/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jagdish Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the State. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2 and 3. Mr. Rajeev Bhatt, Advocate, for the respondent no. 4. (2) Petitioners are having their manufacturing units in SIDCUL, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board has issued separate notice to petitioners on 24.4.2025, whereby final environment compensation, which each unit is liable to pay, has been assessed. In these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the notice issued to them on 24.4.2025. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, these are being disposed of together by this common order, however for the sake of brevity, facts of WPMB No. 366 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed here. (3) Petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of auto parts in its unit situate at Pantnagar Industrial Area in District Udham Singh Nagar. By the impugned notice dated 24.4.2025, Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board has 2025:UHC:4909-DB informed the petitioner that final environment compensation payable by petitioner unit is ₹26,48,438/- and petitioner has been asked to remit the said amount to the Board within one month from the date of issuance of the notice. However, in the last sentence of the impugned notice, it is provided that in case petitioner wishes to contest the assessment, then he is at liberty to make representation along with supporting documents and evidence within one month. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner has contested the assessment made by Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board by submitting representation, which is supported by documentary evidence. He further points out that reply to the notice was given by the petitioner on 26.5.2025. (5) Since competent authority in Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board is seized of the matter and Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh assures the Court that decision on petitioners’ representation shall be taken within six weeks, we dispose of these writ petitions by directing the competent authority to take decision in the matter after considering the reply submitted by petitioners within six weeks. For a period of six weeks or till decision is taken, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against petitioners. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.06.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.06.13 13:21:11 +05'30' 2025:UHC:4909-DB