M/S STAR BRICK INDUSTRIESversusUTTAR PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE AWAS VIKAS OFFICE COMPLEX JAWAHAR NAGAR BHEL

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                       WRIT - C No. - 37144 of 2026

M/S Star Brick Industries
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus


Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional
Office Awas Vikas Office Complex Jawahar Nagar
Bhelpur And 2 Others                                     .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                   :   Surendra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :   Somya Chaturvedi

Court No. - 29
                 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
                 HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Surendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Somya
Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Instructions filed in the Court today by Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned
counsel for the respondents are taken on record.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
permitted to implead the complainant Sri Shyam Narayan as respondent
no. 4 in the array of parties during the course of the day.

4. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated
27.08.2026 passed by the Regional Officer, Varanasi, U.P. Pollution
Control Board by means of which he has refused to renew the
Consolidated Consent to Operate and/or authorization (hereineafter
referred to as Consolidated Consent and Authorization, "C.C.A.").

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
runs a brick-kiln under the name of M/s Star Brick Industries (formally
known as M/s Mata Brick Industries). For running the said brick-kiln, the
petitioner had obtained consent under the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short, 'the Act, 1981') which was valid initially
upto 31.12.2015. Thereafter, the same was renewed vide order dated
24.04.2017 and it was valid upto 30.06.2021. Subsequently, Consent to
                                                      WRIC No. 37144 of 2026
                               2


Operate was granted on 24.06.2021 which was valid upto 31.07.2026.
Learned Senior Counsel next submits that by means of order dated
19.08.2025, the renewal granted from 24.06.2021 which was valid till
31.07.2026 was revoked on the ground that the terms and conditions as
mentioned while granting the Consent to Operate were not fulfilled by the
petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that against the
revocation order dated 19.08.2025, the petitioner preferred an appeal
under Section 31 of the Act, 1981 before the Appellate Authority. The
Appellate Authority by means of order dated 07.04.2026 allowed the
appeal of the petitioner and the revocation order dated 19.08.2025 and the
closure order dated 25.08.2025 were set-aside. Thereafter, respondent no.
4 filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being PIL No. 447 of 2026 :
Shyam Narayan Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and others and vide order dated
15.05.2026, co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said PIL giving
liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
Thereafter, respondent no. 4 filed an appeal before the National Green
Tribunal (N.G.T.) under Section 31-B of the Act, 1981 which was
registered as Appeal No. 84 of 2026 : Shyam Narayan Maurya Vs. State
of U.P. and others. He further submits that even though the appeal was
admitted, however, no stay order was granted with regard to the appellate
order passed by the State Government cancelling the revocation order
passed in favour of the petitioner. As regarding present impugned order,
learned Senior Counsel submits that the present order is bereft of any
reasoning and the only ground for rejecting the renewal application of the
petitioner is that the appeal is pending before the National Green Tribunal
and the Consent to Operate application is refused without keeping it
pending. He next submits that the application for renewal could not have
been refused on the ground that the appeal is pending and the Authorities
were duty bound to grant renewal if the petitioner had complied with all
the terms and conditions to renew the Consent to Operate.

6. Per contra, Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that upon dismissal of the Public Interest Litigation, statutory
appeal under Section 31-B of the Act, 1981 was filed by the complainant
before the N.G.T. The Tribunal has taken cognizance of the same and has
directed the parties to file their respective replies on merit. She next
                                                         WRIC No. 37144 of 2026
                                3


submits that same is reflected upon perusal of the instructions so provided
today. She further submits that once the appeal has been entertained by
the N.G.T., then there is no occasion for the Consent to Operate
application to be renewed as it goes without saying that the Consent to
Operate application would depend upon the fate of the appeal pending
before the Tribunal. Furthermore, she next submits that even if the
application has been rejected, even then it does not bar any fresh
application to be filed before the Pollution Control Board and the same
does not operate as a bar against any such fresh application to be
submitted by the petitioner in future.

7. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the
material available on record.

8. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the newly impleaded
respondent no. 4 has now preferred statutory appeal under Section 31-B
of the Act, 1981. The record also reflects that the Tribunal has taken
cognizance of the same and has directed the parties to file their respective
replies on the merit of the case. Thus, all in all, the Tribunal is seized with
the matter and is proceeding as per mandate given to it which cannot be
faulted in any circumstance. As to the impugned order and the ground that
the application for renewal could not have been rejected on the ground
that the appeal is pending, we find that once the statutory remedy has
been availed by any of the parties, then it would be in the interest of
justice that the statutory proceeding be culminated to its logical
conclusion before any permission under the Act, 1981 is to be granted
because if the appeal is dismissed, then there is no hindrance for the
petitioner for filing a fresh application to seek Consent to Operate but if
the appeal is allowed, then no further application can be filed by the
petitioner unless and until the revocation order which is based upon non-
compliance of the terms and conditions, is set-aside.

9. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality in
the order passed by the respondents refusing to renew the Consent to
Operate permission in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the
appeal before the Tribunal.
                                                                                           WRIC No. 37144 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    10. With the aforesaid observations, we do not deem it fit to exercise our
                                    extra-ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the
                                    instant writ petition stands dismissed.

                                    11. Needless to say, if the appeal filed before the Tribunal is dismissed
                                    then the petitioner will always have the liberty to file a fresh application
                                    which then will be decided in accordance with law.



                                                              (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
                                    September 16, 2026
                                    Sumit S




Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad