Kashmir Brick Kiln vs UT Of J&K And Others

Heard Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant.

The petitioner/ appellant preferred a writ petition seeking direction to consider and renew his licence to run the brick kiln. The Writ Court vide order dated 04.08.2021 though entertained the writ petition but directed it to be placed before the Chief Justice in view of the fact that the matter involves public interest.

The perusal of the averments made in the writ petition as well as the relief claimed therein would clearly reveal that the petition has been filed by the petitioner in his individual capacity for the purposes of renewal of his brick kiln licence. Thus, no public interest element is involved. Accordingly, we do not find any merit to treat the petition as public interest litigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant submits that in view of the observations made by the Writ Court in paragraph 16, the petitioner/ appellant is not being allowed to run the brick kiln.

The Writ Court vide directions contained in paragraph 16 has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, to file response to the writ petition by the next date specifically stating as to why renewal of licence of the petitioner has not been considered on merits and how and under what circumstances the brick kiln in question is being operated in absence of consent from the Pollution Control Board.

The aforesaid directions are to the Statutory Authority to submit explanation with regard to the queries made by the Court. The said order nowhere issues any direction either to allow the petitioner/ appellant or to stop him from running the brick kiln.

In view of the submissions that the petitioner/ appellant is not being allowed to run the brick kiln in view of the directions / observations made in the above paragraph are misconceived and is not acceptable.

It may be pertinent to mention here that licence of the petitioner to run the brick kiln has expired in 2018 and his application for renewal of licence is pending. Therefore, unless and until the licence is renewed, the petitioner cannot run the brick kiln as it would be in violation of the statutory provisions.

In view of the above, we find no substance in the appeal and same stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

The writ petition may be considered and decided by the Writ Court on its own merits.