HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 37144 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Surendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Instructions filed in the Court today by Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents are taken on record. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to implead the complainant Sri Shyam Narayan as respondent no. 4 in the array of parties during the course of the day. 4. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.08.2026 passed by the Regional Officer, Varanasi, U.P. Pollution Control Board by means of which he has refused to renew the Consolidated Consent to Operate and/or authorization (hereineafter referred to as Consolidated Consent and Authorization, "C.C.A."). 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner runs a brick-kiln under the name of M/s Star Brick Industries (formally known as M/s Mata Brick Industries). For running the said brick-kiln, the petitioner had obtained consent under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short, 'the Act, 1981') which was valid initially upto 31.12.2015. Thereafter, the same was renewed vide order dated 24.04.2017 and it was valid upto 30.06.2021. Subsequently, Consent to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Surendra Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Somya Chaturvedi M/S Star Brick Industries .....Petitioner(s) Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Awas Vikas Office Complex Jawahar Nagar Bhelpur And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Operate was granted on 24.06.2021 which was valid upto 31.07.2026. Learned Senior Counsel next submits that by means of order dated 19.08.2025, the renewal granted from 24.06.2021 which was valid till 31.07.2026 was revoked on the ground that the terms and conditions as mentioned while granting the Consent to Operate were not fulfilled by the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that against the revocation order dated 19.08.2025, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 31 of the Act, 1981 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by means of order dated 07.04.2026 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and the revocation order dated 19.08.2025 and the closure order dated 25.08.2025 were set-aside. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being PIL No. 447 of 2026 : Shyam Narayan Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and others and vide order dated 15.05.2026, co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said PIL giving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 filed an appeal before the National Green Tribunal (N.G.T.) under Section 31-B of the Act, 1981 which was registered as Appeal No. 84 of 2026 : Shyam Narayan Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and others. He further submits that even though the appeal was admitted, however, no stay order was granted with regard to the appellate order passed by the State Government cancelling the revocation order passed in favour of the petitioner. As regarding present impugned order, learned Senior Counsel submits that the present order is bereft of any reasoning and the only ground for rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner is that the appeal is pending before the National Green Tribunal and the Consent to Operate application is refused without keeping it pending. He next submits that the application for renewal could not have been refused on the ground that the appeal is pending and the Authorities were duty bound to grant renewal if the petitioner had complied with all the terms and conditions to renew the Consent to Operate. 6. Per contra, Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that upon dismissal of the Public Interest Litigation, statutory appeal under Section 31-B of the Act, 1981 was filed by the complainant before the N.G.T. The Tribunal has taken cognizance of the same and has directed the parties to file their respective replies on merit. She next WRIC No. 37144 of 2026 2 submits that same is reflected upon perusal of the instructions so provided today. She further submits that once the appeal has been entertained by the N.G.T., then there is no occasion for the Consent to Operate application to be renewed as it goes without saying that the Consent to Operate application would depend upon the fate of the appeal pending before the Tribunal. Furthermore, she next submits that even if the application has been rejected, even then it does not bar any fresh application to be filed before the Pollution Control Board and the same does not operate as a bar against any such fresh application to be submitted by the petitioner in future. 7. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the newly impleaded respondent no. 4 has now preferred statutory appeal under Section 31-B of the Act, 1981. The record also reflects that the Tribunal has taken cognizance of the same and has directed the parties to file their respective replies on the merit of the case. Thus, all in all, the Tribunal is seized with the matter and is proceeding as per mandate given to it which cannot be faulted in any circumstance. As to the impugned order and the ground that the application for renewal could not have been rejected on the ground that the appeal is pending, we find that once the statutory remedy has been availed by any of the parties, then it would be in the interest of justice that the statutory proceeding be culminated to its logical conclusion before any permission under the Act, 1981 is to be granted because if the appeal is dismissed, then there is no hindrance for the petitioner for filing a fresh application to seek Consent to Operate but if the appeal is allowed, then no further application can be filed by the petitioner unless and until the revocation order which is based upon non- compliance of the terms and conditions, is set-aside. 9. 9. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondents refusing to renew the Consent to Operate permission in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. WRIC No. 37144 of 2026 3 10. With the aforesaid observations, we do not deem it fit to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 11. Needless to say, if the appeal filed before the Tribunal is dismissed then the petitioner will always have the liberty to file a fresh application which then will be decided in accordance with law. September 16, 2026 Sumit S WRIC No. 37144 of 2026 4 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad