HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31556 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondent and Ms. Subhangini Dwivedi holding brief of Shri Arun Bhanu Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.2-U.P. Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Saharanpur through its Regional Officer. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2 by which consent order passed by him dated 3.9.2024 has been revoked and the petitioner was directed not to operate the brick kiln. It is further prayed for a direction to respondent no.2 to pass fresh order by considering the petitioner's explanation dated 11.08.2025 within stipulated period. 3. It is contended that the petitioner was issued show cause notice by respondent no.2 on 4.8.2025 through registered post, which was served upon the petitioner on 8.8.2025. The petitioner has submitted detailed objection on 11.08.2025 along with relevant documents. In support of his submissions, he has also placed reliance on the visitor's book, which is appended as Annexure No.11 to the writ petition. It is alleged that without considering the objection of the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed on the premise that no response/ objection has been filed by the petitioner. It is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arun Bhanu Shukla, C.S.C., J. N. Maurya M/S Anuj Bricks Field And Another .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) contended that before passing the order impugned, no opportunity has been accorded to the petitioners and as such the same is hit by principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon the consent order dated 10.12.2018 under Section 21/22 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (as amended). As per the order, the petitioner was authorised for emission, as per the standards fixed by the Pollution Control Board, which was valid w.e.f. 6.12.2018 to 31.7.2020. The said order dated 10.12.2018 is also appended as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition. Later on consolidated consent to operate and authorisation referred to as the CCA (Consolidated Consent & Authorization) (Fresh) under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 was also accorded in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 3.9.2024 by the U.P. Pollution Control Board for the period from 11.8.2024 to 31.7.2029 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this backdrop, tried to impress the Court that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not having valid license of running the brick kiln. Necessary permission in this regard was already accorded to the petitioners w.e.f. 11.8.2024 to 31.7.2029. The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned notice was sent through registered post on 4.8.2025 on a private complaint and without waiting for objection, in an arbitrary manner, the order impugned has been passed. Even though objection has been filed on 11.8.2025 but while passing the order impugned dated 13.8.2025 the Authority has wrongly made a comment that no objection has been filed in response to the notice dated 4.8.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the order impugned has been passed strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in it. More so, against the order impugned, the petitioner is having efficacious remedy under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 7. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. WRIC No. 31556 of 2025 2 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262 held that an unjust decision in an administative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in quasi judicial enquiry. The purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Court has referred the classic case of State of Orissa Vs. Dr. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269; Supreme Court in Binapani Case (Supra) observed that if "there is power, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power". 9. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fairplay in action." As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. No doubt, the extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. 10. Considering the factual situation, we find that order impugned is hit by principle of natural justice and before passing the order impugned, the objection of the petitioner dated 11.8.2025 was liable to be considered. 11. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 13.8.2025 is quashed. The matter is relegated to the authority concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity and considering the objection of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. WRIC No. 31556 of 2025 3 12. The writ petition stands partly allowed accordingly. September 17, 2025 SP/ WRIC No. 31556 of 2025 4 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad