Keshav Kumar Saini vs S.P. Subudhi & Another

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 184 of 2021 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by Writ Court vide order dated 25.01.2021 with a direction to respondent

nos. 2 & 3 to take prompt decision on petitioner’s representation within a period of six weeks. It was further directed that, while deciding

petitioner’s representation, respondent nos. 2 & 3 shall make a spot inspection and also hear the persons, who are likely to be affected by the

decision so taken.

Alleging willful violation of the said order, this Contempt Petition has been filed.

A compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. Annexure no. 7 to the compliance affidavit is an order passed on 15.03.2021 by

Member Secretary, Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board. Perusal of the said order indicates that decision on petitioner’s representation has been

taken.

Learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board has also referred to Annexure No. 8 to the compliance affidavit, perusal

whereof indicates that 8 brick kilns have been sealed by Regional Officer, Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board on 25.03.2021. He has further

referred to paragraph no. 20 of the compliance affidavit, wherein it has been stated that complaint cases have been prepared & arranged and they

shall be filed before the Designated Court as soon as normal functioning of the Court is resumed. On a query being posed to learned counsel

appearing for Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, he has assured the Court that these compliant cases will be positively filed within a period of three

weeks from today.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some brick kilns are still operating near the orchard of the petitioner, thus, the order passed by Writ

Court has not been complied with.

This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board that the direction issued

by Writ Court was to take decision on petitioner’s representation. Since such decision has been taken and sealing order was passed against 8

brick kilns, therefore, if some brick kilns have become functional thereafter, then it gives rise to a new cause of action.

In such view of the matter, the contempt petition is closed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the order passed on petitioner’s

representation before the appropriate forum.

Contempt notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.