Allahabad High Court
MANISH KUMAR CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board to decide the petitioner's complaint within two months of receipt of the order.
Summary
The petitioner, Manish Kumar Chauhan, complained that his neighbour (respondent No.6) was polluting the atmosphere and dumping garbage on his land. He filed a complaint with the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) on 10 November 2025, which issued a notice to the respondent on 22 November 2025. The petitioner alleged that no further communication or progress was received from the Board. The petitioners sought a direction for the Board to decide the complaint promptly. The High Court held that the Board must decide the complaint within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order and, if violations are found, appropriate action may be taken by the Agra Development Authority against the polluter. The writ petition was consequently disposed of with the said directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board should be directed by the High Court to decide a pending environmental complaint within a specific time frame.
Subjects
- environmental law
- pollution control
- Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board
- writ petition
- administrative delay
- neighbor dispute
- court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35746 of 2026
Manish Kumar Chauhan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ved Prakash Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., J.N. Maurya, Jai Bahadur
Singh, Sushil Kumar Srivastava
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the State respondents, Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the Agra Development Authority and Ms. Somya
Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board.
2. Because of the fact that the respondent No.6 has been polluting the
atmosphere and also throwing the garbage etc. in the land of the petitioner
who happened to be neighbour of the respondent No.6, a complaint was
lodged by the petitioner through I.G.R.S. before the U.P. Pollution
Control Board on 10.11.2025. On the aforesaid complaint, the U.P.
Pollution Control Board issued notice to the respondent No.6 on
22.11.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that thereafter the petitioner
has not received any notice with regard to the progress of the aforesaid
complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board Ms. Somya
Chaturvedi states that she would require time to take instructions in the
matter.
5. Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Agra
Development Authority states that as and when the U.P. Pollution Central
Board passes order any, the Agra Development Authority will take action.
WRIC No. 35746 of 2026
2
6. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the complaint pending before
the respondent No.2 may be decided. Accordingly, we direct the
respondent No.2 to decide the complaint filed by the petitioner dated
10.11.2025 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. Needless to mention that the when the
aforesaid complaint is decided, the petitioner, respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 and
6 be also heard.
7. It is made clear that if, after the complaint is decided, it is found that
the respondent No.6 was polluting the atmosphere and also not
functioning in the manner the licence had permitted it to function,
appropriate action may be taken by the respondent No.3 against the
respondent No.6.
8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 16, 2026
Rakesh
Digitally signed by :-
RAKESH MEHTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…