Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15407 of 2010 Petitioner :- M/S Mahalaxmi Brick Field Respondent :- Union Of India And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.S. Chauhan,A.K. Singh,R.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C. 2010/13208,Hari Nath Tripathi,Rajesh Misra
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
List is revised. No one is present for the petitioner. Dr. H. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents is present.
The writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:-
" It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue:-
A- An order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the manufacture or bricks by the petitioners in the traditional from by the method of burnt clay.
B- Such other and further order, direction or writ of suitable nature which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
C- An order awarding cost of this petitioner to petition."
The petitioner is running a brick kiln. The petitioner claims that he is owner of the brick kiln and he is engaged in the manufacturing of the bricks. He has challenged the notification dated 14.9.1999 issued by the Govt. of India under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and has also challenged the notification dated 27.8.2003 whereby certain restrictions have been imposed on brick kiln owners whose brick kiln is situated within the radius of 100 kms. from coal of lignite base thermal power plants. They have to use 25% ash in the manufacturing of the bricks. It appears that the said notification has been issued in pursuant to an order passed by the Delhi High Court in a Public Interest Litigation. It is stated in the writ petition that the matter is engaging attention of the Supreme Court. This writ petition was instituted in the year 2010. From the record it appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter and no effort has been made for early hearing of the matter. The record also indicates that the petitioner has not moved any application for early hearing of the matter.
We have perused the material on record and the order-sheet. We find that either by efflux of time the writ petition has become infructuous or the petitioner has lost the interest to pursue the matter. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
However, petitioner is granted liberty to move recall application in case cause of action still survives or this order cause any prejudice to his interest.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Pramod Tripathi