Allahabad High Court
M/S HARSHIT ENTERPRISESversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court did not decide the merits but ordered the petitioner to obtain the required permission under the Air Act and disposed of the writ petition.
Summary
Harshit Enterprises filed a writ petition challenging the sealing of its shop by the Chief Environment Officer, Aligarh, under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The petitioner argued that it is a small‑scale key‑making unit with no hazardous emissions and that the order was issued arbitrarily following a complaint by a police constable. The respondents contended that the manufacturing process uses chemicals and requires prior permission under the Act, which the petitioner had not obtained. The High Court declined to adjudicate the merits, directing the petitioner to apply for the requisite permission and stating that the application should be decided within three weeks. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, and the seal on the premises was to be lifted except for any part used as a dwelling.
Issues considered
- Whether the sealing order issued under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, is valid in the absence of a prior permission for the petitioner’s key‑manufacturing activity.
- Whether the order was issued arbitrarily based on a complaint by a police constable.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- environmental law
- pollution control
- Air Act 1981
- section 31(A)
- seal order
- small scale industry
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 19042 of 2026
M/S Harshit Enterprises
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Hari Nath Tripathi
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ambrish
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State
respondents and Sri Alok Tripathi, learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution
Control Board.
2. The instant writ petition is preferred questioning the validity of the
order impugned dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Chief Environment
Officer (Zone-4), U.P. Pollution Control Board, Aligarh (Annexure-1)
whereby the petitioner's shop has been sealed. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a small shop, which is
registered as small scale industry (Laghu Udyog) with very low
investment, by using simple tools and machines for finishing work and
making keys smooth and shiny. He is in the said business for the last
thirty years. In some arbitrary manner, the respondent no. 6, who is Police
Constable, had made a complaint on account of old enmity and the same
was entertained on IGRS. The respondent authority passed the order
impugned in a very arbitrary manner under Section 31 (A) of Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (in short the 'Act, 1981').
He submits that the said order is not sustainable.
3. Per contra, Sri Alok Tripathi, learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution
Control Board submits that as the petitioner is involved in manufacturing
of keys with the use of chemicals, which requires due permission
under the Act, 1981, nothing has been brought on record that any such
WRIC No. 19042 of 2026
2
permission has been granted in favour of the petitioner. In absence
thereof, the proceeding under the Act, 1981 has been initiated and the
premises has been sealed. He fairly submits that in case, the petitioner
complies the requirement/formality, as required under the Act, 1981,
definitely, the same shall be redressed by the concerned authority in
accordance with law.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, at this stage, we are not
inclined to advert the matter on merit. We leave it open to the petitioner to
move appropriate application for due permission under the Act, 1981. We
expect that the said application shall be processed by the Competent
Authority and final decision is to be taken within three weeks from the
date of receipt of the said application.
5. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed
of.
6. Meanwhile, the seal of the premises except business, in case, other part
of the house is being used for the dwelling purpose, the same shall be
opened.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 14, 2026
gp
Digitally signed by :-
GANESH PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…