HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35746 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents, Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Agra Development Authority and Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board. 2. Because of the fact that the respondent No.6 has been polluting the atmosphere and also throwing the garbage etc. in the land of the petitioner who happened to be neighbour of the respondent No.6, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner through I.G.R.S. before the U.P. Pollution Control Board on 10.11.2025. On the aforesaid complaint, the U.P. Pollution Control Board issued notice to the respondent No.6 on 22.11.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that thereafter the petitioner has not received any notice with regard to the progress of the aforesaid complaint. 4. Learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board Ms. Somya Chaturvedi states that she would require time to take instructions in the matter. 5. Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Agra Development Authority states that as and when the U.P. Pollution Central Board passes order any, the Agra Development Authority will take action. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ved Prakash Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., J.N. Maurya, Jai Bahadur Singh, Sushil Kumar Srivastava Manish Kumar Chauhan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the complaint pending before the respondent No.2 may be decided. Accordingly, we direct the respondent No.2 to decide the complaint filed by the petitioner dated 10.11.2025 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to mention that the when the aforesaid complaint is decided, the petitioner, respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 be also heard. 7. It is made clear that if, after the complaint is decided, it is found that the respondent No.6 was polluting the atmosphere and also not functioning in the manner the licence had permitted it to function, appropriate action may be taken by the respondent No.3 against the respondent No.6. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. September 16, 2026 Rakesh WRIC No. 35746 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH MEHTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad