Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9437 of 2011 Petitioner :- C/M Institute Of Foreign Trade & Management Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dr. Hari Nath Tripathi,P.C. Shukla,Rajesh Mishra
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs:
"i) issue a writ or direction or pass an order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the letters/ notices/ orders dated 15.04.2010, 07.07.2010, 02.12.2010 and 18.12.2010 issued by the REGIONAL OFFICER, Regional Office of U.P. Pollution Control Board, 1-A, INS-1, Avas Vikas Colony, Budhi Vihar, Delhi Road, Moradabad, i.e., the respondent No. 3 (Annexures No. 4, 6, 8 & 9 to the writ petition) and the entire action based upon the same;
ii) issue a writ or direction or pass an order in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents especially respondents no. 2 and 3 not to coerce the petitioner-institution in any manner whatsoever under the garb of impugned notices/ orders and/or under the purported exercise of powers under AIR (PREVENTION & CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981, U.P. AIR (PREVENTION & CONTROL OF POLLUTION) RULES, 1983, WATER (PREVENTION & CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974, UTTAR PRADESH WATER (CONSENT FOR DISCHARGE OF SEWAGE & TRADE EFFLUENTS) RULES 1981 and/or Notification No. 3405/ 55-Parya-2008-256 (Parya)-2001 dated 08.09.2008 and/or Notification No. 3406/ 55- Parya-2008- 258 (Parya)-2001 dated 08.09.2008 either holding/ declaring the same as ultra- vires and/or holding the same as not binding against/upon the petitioner;"
In the revised list, no one is present to press this writ petition.
The record shows that no effort has been made for hearing of this matter which is lying dormant for last several years. After perusal of the record it seems that the cause of action now does not survive and the writ petition has become infructuous by efflux of time.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous leaving it open to the petitioner to move a recall application in case cause of action still survives or this order causes any prejudice to the interest of the petitioner.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 SKT/-