High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64805-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12748 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S R.D.Y. Ent Udyog Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devansh Misra,Vinayak Mithal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Nath Tripathi Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Devansh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Sarthak Singh for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
Legal Reasoning
2. With consent of counsel for the parties, the instant petition is being disposed of finally, without inviting any formal counter affidavit. 3. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 21.6.2023 passed by Regional Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Gorakhpur, whereby the Consent to Operate order in favour of the petitioner, has been revoked and the order dated 4.4.2025 passed by Environmental Engineer, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Circle - 6, Gorakhpur by which direction has been issued for closure of the brick kiln unit of the petitioner-firm. 4. It appears that the petitioner-firm was having a Consent to Operate in its favour, issued by U.P. Pollution Control Board on 13.10.2022, valid from 13.10.2022 to 31.7.2027, for running of a brick kiln at Village Barhaj, Tehsil Padrauna, District Kushinagar. By order dated 21.6.2023, the Consent to Operate granted in favour of the petitioner was purportedly revoked on ground of defects in the documents submitted by the petitioner-firm at the time of obtaining the Consent to Operate order. The specific case of the petitioner is that the said order was never communicated to the petitioner and before passing the said order, even no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It appears that thereafter, some complaint was made against running of the brick kiln by the petitioner close to abadi area. The U.P. Pollution Control Board issued notice to the petitioner-firm on 3.8.2023 seeking its explanation within one week, failing which, the Consent to Operate would be cancelled. In the said notice, there was no reference to the order dated 21.6.2023 revoking the Consent to Operate. It is an admitted fact that the order revoking the Consent to Operate was not implemented by the Board and the petitioner continued to run the brick kiln. The petitioner was issued another show cause notice on 27.2.2025 in which it is stated that a report has been submitted by Regional Office, Gorakhpur that the petitioner does not have any Consent to Operate order and that the site at which the brick kiln is being run, is not in accordance with the norms prescribed by U.P. Brick Kilns (Siting Criteria for Establishment) Rules, 2012. Subsequently, the respondent- Environmental Officer holding that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory and that the Consent to Operate stood revoked by order dated 21.6.2023, has passed the closure order.
Legal Reasoning
5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given any show cause notice before the Consent to Operate was revoked vide order dated 21.6.2023. In this regard, a specific averment has been made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order was also never enforced by the respondents and the petitioner was permitted to run the brick kiln and therefore, the petitioner did not come to know of the same. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 27.2.2025 also does not mention about the order revoking the Consent to Operate, though it mentions that as per report of the Regional Office, Gorakhpur, the petitioner does not possess any Consent to Operate order. It is submitted that had the order been in the knowledge of the petitioner, the petitioner would have submitted proper response, but since the said fact was not intimated to the petitioner while issuing show cause notice, therefore, serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. It is also submitted that as Consent to Operate was valid uptil 31.7.2027, therefore, it could not have been unilaterally cancelled by the respondents without seeking explanation of the petitioner and complying with the principles of natural justice. 6. Sri Sarthak Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.P. Pollution Control Board, admits that the order dated 21.6.2023 revoking the Consent to Operate does not indicate that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and that the said order was passed solely on the ground that the documents uploaded by the petitioner at the time of seeking Consent to Operate were not found to be in order. Thus, there is no denial of the fact that revocation of the Consent to Operate was done by the respondents without complying with the principles of natural justice. 7. It is also not disputed before us, but rather admitted, that the aforesaid order dated 21.6.2023 was never given effect to. It is now that said order is sought to be implemented by passing the impugned closure order. 8. We further notice that the show cause notice dated 27.2.2025 which preceded the closure order, does not refer to the order revoking the Consent to Operate and thus, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced, inasmuch as the petitioner could not give proper reply or explanation in relation to the alleged defect in the documents submitted at the time of obtaining the Consent to Operate, is found to be sustainable. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid undisputed facts, we are of the considered opinion that revocation of the Consent to Operate by impugned order dated 21.6.2023 and the consequent action by way of closure order dated 4.4.2025, are in breach of principles of natural justice and therefore both the orders are quashed, leaving it open to the respondents to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law. The respondents shall supply inspection report and all adverse materials to the petitioner before passing any fresh order.
Decision
10. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad