# Sumit Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 708
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-11-21
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C J. Dilip Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sumit-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42915
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226- PIL-
conditions
for
running
brick
kiln
guidelines given to administration as
well as to pollution board.

Held: Para-10
As it has come to the notice of the Court
that some brick kilns have been conducting
their business even without grant of No
Objection Certificates or consent of the
Board, it has become necessary to issue the
following
directions
:-
2 All] Sumit Singh Vs. State U.P. & Ors.
709
i) We direct that the Board shall make a
detailed survey of all the brick kilns
operating in the districts of Meerut and
Baghpat and ensure that any brick kiln
found to be operating without the
consent or permission of the Board and
in breach of the 2012 Rules, is dealt with
in accordance with law;

ii) We also find no reason or justification
as to why the instructions/directions
given above should not be applied across
the State. We, therefore, direct that a
survey should be carried out by the
Board in respect of all the districts of the
State. The survey shall be completed
within a period of two months from the
receipt of a certified copy of this order;

iii) Where the Board finds that the
operation of any brick kiln is being
carried out without the No Objection
Certificate of the Board or in breach of
the 2012 Rules, immediate steps shall be
taken in accordance with law with due
notice to the brick kiln owners. These
enquiries shall be taken to their logical
conclusion and shall be completed no
later than within a period of three
months thereafter;

## Text

708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. There is another aspect of the
matter. In the present case Abdul Kareem
expired on 15.7.2011, i.e. before the
disciplinary authority could pass any
order on the enquiry report dated
3.7.2011. In the circumstances therefore,
the master and servant relationship
between Late Abdul Kareem and the
respondents also came to an end with his
death and therefore, the impugned order
dated 21.11.2011 could not have been
passed after the death of Abdul Kareem.

11. In my opinion therefore the
disciplinary authority could not have
passed
the
order
dated
21.11.2011
withholding the retiral dues and other
benefits of late Abdul Kareem. When
Abdul Kareem died on 15.7.2011 he
could not have been said to be a
government
servant
thereafter
and
therefore the order dated 21.11.2011 on
the face of it is a wholly illegal and
arbitrary order and has no basis in law and
cannot survive.

12. So far as the matter of
compassionate
appointment
of
the
petitioner no. 1 is concerned, for the same
reasons
that
since
the
disciplinary
authority has not taken any decision
regarding the finding of guilt against late
Abdul Kareem prior to his death, it could
not be said that the charge had been
established against late Abdul Kareem as
disciplinary proceedings are concluded
only with the passing of the order of
disciplinary authority and not when the
enquiry officer submits his report.

13. In this view of the matter, the
writ petition is allowed and both the
impugned orders dated 21.11.2011 and
1.3.2012 are quashed. The respondents
are directed to take steps for payment of
all retiral benefits to the legal heirs of late
Abdul Kareem. So far as the order dated
1.3.2012 regarding rejection of the claim
of petitioner no .1 for compassionate
appointment is concerned, a direction is
issued to the District Magistrate, Deoriarespondent no. 3 to take a decision afresh
in this regard having regard to the
educational qualification of the petitioner
no. 1 and availability of vacancy within a
period of two months from the date a
certified copy of this order is received in
his office.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA
YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ [PIL] Petition No. 20773 of
2014

Sumit Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anoop Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dr. H.N. Tripathi, Sri V.S. Chauhan,Sri
S.K. Srivastava, Mrs. Alka Srivastava

Constitution of India, Art.-226- PIL-
conditions
for
running
brick
kiln
guidelines given to administration as
well as to pollution board.

Held: Para-10
As it has come to the notice of the Court
that some brick kilns have been conducting
their business even without grant of No
Objection Certificates or consent of the
Board, it has become necessary to issue the
following
directions
:-
2 All] Sumit Singh Vs. State U.P. & Ors.
709
i) We direct that the Board shall make a
detailed survey of all the brick kilns
operating in the districts of Meerut and
Baghpat and ensure that any brick kiln
found to be operating without the
consent or permission of the Board and
in breach of the 2012 Rules, is dealt with
in accordance with law;

ii) We also find no reason or justification
as to why the instructions/directions
given above should not be applied across
the State. We, therefore, direct that a
survey should be carried out by the
Board in respect of all the districts of the
State. The survey shall be completed
within a period of two months from the
receipt of a certified copy of this order;

iii) Where the Board finds that the
operation of any brick kiln is being
carried out without the No Objection
Certificate of the Board or in breach of
the 2012 Rules, immediate steps shall be
taken in accordance with law with due
notice to the brick kiln owners. These
enquiries shall be taken to their logical
conclusion and shall be completed no
later than within a period of three
months thereafter;

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice)

1. The petition, which has been filed
in the public interest, makes a grievance
in regard to the establishment and
operation of brick kilns in violation of the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Brick
Kilns (Site Criteria for Establishment)
Rules, 2012 in the districts of Baghpat
and Meerut.

2. These rules have been framed
under sections 54(2)(z) and 21(2) of the
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981 to regulate the criteria for the
establishment of brick kilns in the State.
Rule 2 defines, inter alia, the prohibited
distance within which a brick kiln cannot
be established from a residential area or,
as the case may be, hospitals, schools,
public buildings and religious places.
Rule 3 provides that no licence in respect
of the firing of a brick kiln or for mining
lease shall be granted by the Zila
Panchayat/District
Administration
concerned until and unless a valid
previous consent has been obtained by the
owner of the brick kiln from the State
Pollution Control Board. Rule 7 provides
for the manner in which the application
has to be submitted to the State Pollution
Control Board for granting permission for
operation of the brick kiln.

3. According to the petitioner, a
report was submitted on 31 October 2013
by a committee of the State Pollution
Control Board that several brick kilns
were continuing with the work of
construction though the proposals for
grant of No Objection Certificates had
been rejected by the Board. The report
also mentions that in many cases, brick
kilns had even commenced operation
though their proposals for grant of No
Objection Certificates had been rejected
by the Board. Since no action was being
taken by the authorities including the
District Administration, the present writ
petition has been filed in the public
interest.

4. A short counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the newly impleaded
respondent nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 stating that
three members of the family of the
petitioner namely, his mother, step mother
and elder brother are operating brick kilns
where there are large stocks of unsold
710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bricks and hence the petition has been
filed, it is urged, to prevent the stocks of
the surrounding brick kilns from coming
into the market. Moreover, it has been
stated that an earlier petition which had
been filed by the petitioner (Writ-C
No.168 of 2013) was dismissed as not
pressed by a Division Bench of this Court
on 29 January 2013.

5. On the other hand, it has been
submitted by the petitioner that the mere
fact that members of his family conduct
brick kilns is no ground for rejection of
the petition since it is submitted that the
petitioner has separated from his family.
Moreover, it has been submitted that the
petitioner has filed several other petitions
in the public interest which have been
entertained by the Court.

6. A counter affidavit has also been
filed on behalf of the Pollution Control
Board. It has been stated that there are
fifteen brick kilns in the district Baghpat
which are mentioned in Annexure-2 to the
writ petition. The Pollution Control Board
has granted its No Objection Certificate to
nine brick kilns whose names are set out
in Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit.
The application for grant of a No
Objection Certificate to five brick kilns,
whose names are also set out in
Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit, was
rejected. On 12 April 2014, the Regional
Office of the Pollution Control Board
issued notices to these five brick kiln
owners calling upon them not to run their
brick kilns without a No Objection
Certificate or consent of the Board as
required under the Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Insofar as
the Meerut district is concerned, it has
been stated that the Regional Office of the
Pollution Control Board had granted
consent on 17 December 2013 to one
brick kiln and on verification, it has been
found that the other two brick kilns,
which have been referred to by the
petitioner, are not in existence.

7. In our view, for the purpose of
these proceedings, even if the Court was
to come to the conclusion that there is
some doubt about the bonafides of the
petitioner, that should not, in a matter as
the present, result in rejection of the
petition once facts which have a bearing
on the public interest have been brought
to the notice of the Court through an
affidavit of the Pollution Control Board.
Where a petition is filed for extraneous or
oblique motives, the Court in the exercise
of its judicial discretion may decline to
interfere. However, this is undoubtedly a
matter of judicial discretion because in a
particular case, material may be brought
to the attention of the Court independently
by a statutory authority which may
require judicial intervention. However,
the Court has to be careful and
circumspect because, where the locus of
the petitioner or his motivation are in
doubt, it may be necessary to structure the
relief sought so as to ensure that the
petition is not used as an instrument for
suppressing a business rival. This note of
circumspection has to be kept in mind in
the present case.

8. The Pollution Control Board has
now stated before the Court that in
Baghpat
district,
No
Objection
Certificates were granted to nine brick
kilns whereas in the case of five brick
kilns, the proposals for the grant of No
2 All] Sumit Singh Vs. State U.P. & Ors.
711
Objection Certificates were rejected. The
notices which have been issued by the
Pollution Control Board on 12 April 2014
(Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit) would
indicate that despite the refusal of the No
Objection Certificates, the brick kilns are
being conducted. In our view, there is
absolutely no reason or justification for the
Board in failing to discharge its statutory
obligation. It is only when this petition came
up before the Court on 10 April 2014 that the
Pollution Control Board seems to have been
galvanized into action. Obviously, if the
Board was active in the enforcement of law
and in the discharge of its statutory obligation,
it would not have waited for the intervention
of the Court before taking such action. Hence,
we must express our serious concern about the
manifest failure on the part of the Board in not
taking remedial measures. The Regional
Officers of the Pollution Control Board must
be held accountable for failure to carry out the
statutory obligations which they have to
perform.

9. We, therefore, direct that the
Pollution Control Board shall take all due
and necessary steps to ensure that the work
of the Regional Officers is closely monitored
so as to ensure that the statutory duties and
obligations which are cast upon them are
duly performed. Now, when the Board has
issued notices on 12 April 2014 to the brick
kiln owners who have been operating their
brick kilns without permission or consent of
the Board, we direct that the Board shall
make all endeavour to take the matter to its
logical
conclusion.
The
District
Administration shall also co-operate with the
Board to ensure compliance of law.

10. As it has come to the notice of
the Court that some brick kilns have been
conducting their business even without
grant of No Objection Certificates or
consent of the Board, it has become
necessary to issue the following directions
:-

i) We direct that the Board shall
make a detailed survey of all the brick
kilns operating in the districts of Meerut
and Baghpat and ensure that any brick
kiln found to be operating without the
consent or permission of the Board and in
breach of the 2012 Rules, is dealt with in
accordance with law;

ii) We also find no reason or
justification
as
to
why
the
instructions/directions given above should
not be applied across the State. We,
therefore, direct that a survey should be
carried out by the Board in respect of all
the districts of the State. The survey shall
be completed within a period of two
months from the receipt of a certified
copy of this order;

iii) Where the Board finds that the
operation of any brick kiln is being carried
out without the No Objection Certificate of
the Board or in breach of the 2012 Rules,
immediate steps shall be taken in accordance
with law with due notice to the brick kiln
owners. These enquiries shall be taken to
their logical conclusion and shall be
completed no later than within a period of
three months thereafter;

iv) In order to maintain transparency
in the working of the Board and its
Regional Offices, details of the notices
issued and the action taken should be
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
periodically uploaded on the website of
the State Pollution Control Board;

v) The Board shall also upload the
names of all the brick kilns which have
submitted applications for granting the No
Objection Certificates as also the names of
brick kilns which have been granted such
certificates so as to facilitate a verification of
whether any brick kiln in the State is being
operated without the grant of the requisite
permission or a No Objection Certificate of
the Board. Likewise, the refusal to grant a No
Objection
Certificate
should
also
be
periodically uploaded on the website of the
Board. The exercise of uploading the No
Objection Certificates which have already
been granted shall be completed within a
period of two months;

vi) The due exercise of statutory
powers by the Pollution Control Board
also requires the co-operation of the
District Administration and the law
enforcement machinery. The District
Administration and the law enforcement
machinery of the districts shall, therefore,
take all necessary steps to ensure due
compliance with the lawful instructions
and directives issued by the Board.

11. The writ petition is, accordingly,
disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.06.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 21567 of 2014
(U/s 482 Cr.P.C.)
Rahees alias Baura & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh .Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Md. Abrar Khan, Sri Irfan U Huda

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A.

Cr. P.C.-Section-482-Practice of seeking
direction for disposal of bail application
on same day-inspite of clear authority of
full Bench consisting Seven Judges as
well as of the Apex Court-amounts to
grass abuse process of law and frivolous
litigation- in absence of pleadings to
attract
the
power
of Section
482exemplary cost-held must.

Held: Para-23
In view of the above and considering the
fact that despite the law laid down by a
Larger
Bench
of
this
Court
in
Smt.Amarawati and Anr. (supra), which has
been approved by Apex Court also in Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh (supra) and has
considered again in a recent decision in
Trilok Chand (supra), still applications
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., like present one,
are continuously being filed with a sole
request that bail application, which is yet to
be filed, should be directed to be decided on
the same day. In my view, it is nothing but
a gross abuse of process of law and
frivolous litigation, therefore, should attract
exemplary cost.

Case Law discussed:
2004(57) ALR 390; 2009(3) ADJ 322; 1992
Supp. (1) SCC 335; (2006) 7 SCC 296; (2008)
1 SCC 474; (2008)1 SCC 474; (2008) 8 SCC
781; (2009) 9 SCC 682; JT 2010 (6) SC 588;
2011(1) SCC 74; 2012 (2) SC 237; AIR 2007
SC 137; 1976 (1) SCC 671; 1994 Cri.L.J.
1981=1994(4) SCC 260; 2009(4)SCC 437;
2005(1) AWC 416; 2010 (4) SCC 358; Crl. M.P.
No. 25683 of 2013; 1986 Supp. SCC 719;
(2011) 8 SCC 249; AIR 2012 SC 2881; JT
2005(6) SC 486.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)