HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32709 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Mehul Khare, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Pollution Control Board. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the following relief: "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 passed by Chief Environmental Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Circle 6, Gorakhpur, District-Gorakhpur. 3. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on the consolidated consent to operate the authorization which is referred as C.C.A. (Consolidated Consent and Authorization) (Fresh) under section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and section 21 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 dated 29.10.2022 and the said communication is also brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. He submits that the permission was granted for the period from 29.10.2022 to 31.07.2023. 4. In this backdrop, learned Senior Counsel further submits that the previous closure order, which was passed earlier on, had not given effect to by the respondent authority i.e. U.P. Pollution Control Board on account of subsequent communication dated 29.10.2022. Admittedly, due permission Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahendra Singh, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Hari Nath Tripathi M/S Subash Singh Huf .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) was accorded with effect from 29.10.2022 to 31.07.2023. He submits that after expiry of the said period, petitioner moved an application for extension of time but without acting upon the said application, the respondent had insisted upon the earlier order dated 14.07.2021. 5. He submits that the application was moved earlier on by the petitioner for extension of time but the Authority concern has insisted the petitioner to move fresh application. Therefore, the petitioner shall definitely move the appropriate application in accordance with law. 6. Sri Mehul Khare, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has placed reliance on the communication dated 12.10.2023 which is also taken on record, and copy of the same has also been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that in-spite of the notice, petitioner had not furnished the adequate information and as such consolidated authorization had been declined. He further submits that he has no objection in case the petitioner moves a fresh application in accordance with law. 7. Considering the factual aspect of the issue involved, we are not inclined to advert the matter on merit of the case. With the consent of both the parties, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with an observation that in case, the petitioner moves fresh application in accordance with law within two weeks from today, the authority shall process the said application in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. October 8, 2025 Sumit S WRIC No. 32709 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad