High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri S.C. Mishra learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Dwivedi learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akash Sinha learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the U.P. Pollution Control Board.

2. For the same cause, a writ petition i.e. Writ C No. 10809 of 2024 was previously instituted before this Court, which was disposed of on 16.12.2024 in terms of the following order :-

1. Heard Sri S.C. Mishra learned Senior Counsel assisted by the Sri Amit Dwivedi learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State and Sri A.K. Verma learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 5. Page No. 1 of 6

2. Admittedly, an appeal arising out of the impugned order instituted before the State under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981 read-with Section Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is pending. An application for interim relief is also stated to have been filed which is pending consideration before the appellate authority.

3. That being the position, the present writ petition for the same relief may not be maintainable simultaneously before this Court.

4. The necessity of instituting the present writ petition according to learned counsel for the petitioner arose on account of the office of the appellant authority being vacant but it is informed that at present the said forum is functional since 12.12.2024.

5. In view of the above, we hereby provide that the application for interim relief, if any, filed before the appellate authority along-with the appeal may be proceeded with expeditiously and the same may be decided not later than a period of ten days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after due opportunity to the parties concerned.

6. We also provide that the appeal itself may be proceeded with promptitude and the same may be decided at the earliest and preferably within a period of six weeks.

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

3. It is clear from the order extracted above that this court had declined to entertain the writ petition primarily on the ground that the State had proceeded to constitute the appellate authority and it is for this reason that all the pleas were left open to the petitioner for being taken up and pursued before the appellate authority whether on the application for interim relief or while deciding the appeal. Page No. 2 of 6

4. It is noteworthy that the functional availability of the appellate forum was informed to the Court on the date when the previous writ petition came up for orders. The vacancy was filled by the State government after institution of the writ petition prior to which the forum was defunct. The writ petition had though raised issues on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice yet the Court left it open for the petitioner to agitate all such grievances before the appellate authority.

5. The statutory appeal has admittedly been filed. The appellate authority constituted as above remained functional upto 02.02.2025. The order passed by this Court was brought to the knowledge of the appellate authority on

20.12.2024, whereafter, ten days period for the purposes of disposal of the application for the interim relief expired on

31.12.2024. The appellate authority failed to decide the petitioner's application for interim relief and again the appellate forum became vacant with effect from 3.1.2025 and according to the averments made in the present writ petition, the appellate forum having fallen vacant has occasioned the necessity for filing the present writ petition though the relief sought therein is the same as was prayed for in the earlier writ petition. Page No. 3 of 6

6. It is disturbing to notice that the appellate authority though remaining functional for more than ten days after service of the order passed by this Court has failed to decide the petitioner's application for interim relief as was directed by this Court in its order passed on 16.12.2024. The appellate forum fell vacant again since 03.1.2024. The State further failed to make any application seeking extension of time either for disposal of the interim relief or for that matter the appeal itself. After service of the notice of the present writ petition on 29.01.2025 for institution before this Court when the writ petition has come up today for admission/orders, Sri Akash Sinha learned counsel for the State has again pointed out that the appellate authority has taken over charge on 4.2.2025, therefore, the appellate forum has become available.

7. Learned counsel for the State however could not justify as to why the application for interim relief was not decided by the previous appellate authority when ample time was available for passing the necessary order.

8. Learned counsel for the State is also unable to explain as to why the application seeking extension of time could not be filed by the State before raising all these objections against the maintainability of the present writ petition. Page No. 4 of 6

9. It is well settled that the failure on the part of the State authority to comply with the order passed by this Court will not preclude the Court from passing orders in the interest of justice.

10. On scrutiny of the pleas raised before the appellate authority as well as in the present writ petition, the compliance of the rule of opportunity before passing the order impugned in the pending appeal seems hazy. Though a prima facie case for interference is made out but no opinion by way of a final decision can be rendered by this Court during pendency of the appeal.

11. We however take note of the fact that there is a complete failure on the part of the appellate authority to have complied with the order passed by this Court as regards disposal of the interim relief application.

12. We accordingly stay the operation and implementation of the order dated 9.10.2024 passed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board as contained Annexure-1 to the writ petition for a period of one month within which the appellate authority shall decide the pending appeal in accordance with law. The order passed by us shall remain operative till the disposal of the appeal, in case there is a failure on the part of the appellate authority to decide the same within Page No. 5 of 6 the stipulated time. We however caution the petitioner to co-operate with the proceedings and not to seek undue adjournments before the appellate authority. The application for withdrawal of the appeal made by him on account of the forum falling vacant as is mentioned in the writ petition is also permitted to be withdrawn and the same is deemed to have been withdrawn forthwith.

13. We also provide that the petitioner shall adhere to the environmental norms meticulously so that the industrial activities stand in conformity with law subject to which the environmental clearances which have been granted shall remain intact.

14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. [Subhash Vidyarthi,J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 5.2.2025 kanhaiya Page No. 6 of 6 KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri S.C. Mishra learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Dwivedi learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akash Sinha learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the U.P. Pollution Control Board.

2. For the same cause, a writ petition i.e. Writ C No. 10809 of 2024 was previously instituted before this Court, which was disposed of on 16.12.2024 in terms of the following order :-

1. Heard Sri S.C. Mishra learned Senior Counsel assisted by the Sri Amit Dwivedi learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State and Sri A.K. Verma learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 5. Page No. 1 of 6

2. Admittedly, an appeal arising out of the impugned order instituted before the State under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981 read-with Section Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is pending. An application for interim relief is also stated to have been filed which is pending consideration before the appellate authority.

3. That being the position, the present writ petition for the same relief may not be maintainable simultaneously before this Court.

4. The necessity of instituting the present writ petition according to learned counsel for the petitioner arose on account of the office of the appellant authority being vacant but it is informed that at present the said forum is functional since 12.12.2024.

5. In view of the above, we hereby provide that the application for interim relief, if any, filed before the appellate authority along-with the appeal may be proceeded with expeditiously and the same may be decided not later than a period of ten days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after due opportunity to the parties concerned.

6. We also provide that the appeal itself may be proceeded with promptitude and the same may be decided at the earliest and preferably within a period of six weeks.

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

3. It is clear from the order extracted above that this court had declined to entertain the writ petition primarily on the ground that the State had proceeded to constitute the appellate authority and it is for this reason that all the pleas were left open to the petitioner for being taken up and pursued before the appellate authority whether on the application for interim relief or while deciding the appeal. Page No. 2 of 6

4. It is noteworthy that the functional availability of the appellate forum was informed to the Court on the date when the previous writ petition came up for orders. The vacancy was filled by the State government after institution of the writ petition prior to which the forum was defunct. The writ petition had though raised issues on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice yet the Court left it open for the petitioner to agitate all such grievances before the appellate authority.

5. The statutory appeal has admittedly been filed. The appellate authority constituted as above remained functional upto 02.02.2025. The order passed by this Court was brought to the knowledge of the appellate authority on

20.12.2024, whereafter, ten days period for the purposes of disposal of the application for the interim relief expired on

31.12.2024. The appellate authority failed to decide the petitioner's application for interim relief and again the appellate forum became vacant with effect from 3.1.2025 and according to the averments made in the present writ petition, the appellate forum having fallen vacant has occasioned the necessity for filing the present writ petition though the relief sought therein is the same as was prayed for in the earlier writ petition. Page No. 3 of 6

6. It is disturbing to notice that the appellate authority though remaining functional for more than ten days after service of the order passed by this Court has failed to decide the petitioner's application for interim relief as was directed by this Court in its order passed on 16.12.2024. The appellate forum fell vacant again since 03.1.2024. The State further failed to make any application seeking extension of time either for disposal of the interim relief or for that matter the appeal itself. After service of the notice of the present writ petition on 29.01.2025 for institution before this Court when the writ petition has come up today for admission/orders, Sri Akash Sinha learned counsel for the State has again pointed out that the appellate authority has taken over charge on 4.2.2025, therefore, the appellate forum has become available.

7. Learned counsel for the State however could not justify as to why the application for interim relief was not decided by the previous appellate authority when ample time was available for passing the necessary order.

8. Learned counsel for the State is also unable to explain as to why the application seeking extension of time could not be filed by the State before raising all these objections against the maintainability of the present writ petition. Page No. 4 of 6

9. It is well settled that the failure on the part of the State authority to comply with the order passed by this Court will not preclude the Court from passing orders in the interest of justice.

10. On scrutiny of the pleas raised before the appellate authority as well as in the present writ petition, the compliance of the rule of opportunity before passing the order impugned in the pending appeal seems hazy. Though a prima facie case for interference is made out but no opinion by way of a final decision can be rendered by this Court during pendency of the appeal.

11. We however take note of the fact that there is a complete failure on the part of the appellate authority to have complied with the order passed by this Court as regards disposal of the interim relief application.

12. We accordingly stay the operation and implementation of the order dated 9.10.2024 passed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board as contained Annexure-1 to the writ petition for a period of one month within which the appellate authority shall decide the pending appeal in accordance with law. The order passed by us shall remain operative till the disposal of the appeal, in case there is a failure on the part of the appellate authority to decide the same within Page No. 5 of 6 the stipulated time. We however caution the petitioner to co-operate with the proceedings and not to seek undue adjournments before the appellate authority. The application for withdrawal of the appeal made by him on account of the forum falling vacant as is mentioned in the writ petition is also permitted to be withdrawn and the same is deemed to have been withdrawn forthwith.

13. We also provide that the petitioner shall adhere to the environmental norms meticulously so that the industrial activities stand in conformity with law subject to which the environmental clearances which have been granted shall remain intact.

14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. [Subhash Vidyarthi,J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 5.2.2025 kanhaiya Page No. 6 of 6 KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench