Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32219 of 2013 Petitioner :- M/S Vimal Int Udyog And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dashrath Prasad,P.C. Pathak,Shyam Sunder Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dr. H.N. Tripathi,S. Nadeem
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Petitioner no. 1 is a proprietorship firm which runs a brick kiln. He is aggrieved by order dated 14.03.2013 passed by District Magistrate, whereby the petitioners' claim to run the brick kiln has been invalidated and rejected on the ground that the sight of kiln does not fulfil the norms prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Brick Kilns (Sitting Criteria for Establishment) Rules, 2012 (for short the 'Rule 2012').
It appears that a Public Interest Litigation bearing PIL No. 56941 of 2012 was filed by Vibhuti Narain Dubey and others, residents of the area where the brick kiln was established raising their grievances that the said brick kiln is being run without following the rules prescribed therefor. The PIL was disposed of on 04.12.2012, issuing a direction upon the District Magistrate to consider the cause of the petitioners therein. The District Magistrate and the Regional Officer, Pollution Control Board, Allahabad has passed a joint order and wherein they have found that the brick kiln has been established contrary to the Rule 2012.
Accordingly, it was also found that the brick kiln has been established without taking no objection from the Pollution Control Board in terms of the Rule 2012.
At the time, when the writ petition was entertained in the year 2013, the Court has made it clear that no interim order has been granted.
In the revised list, learned counsel for the petitioner is not present to press the writ petition.
We have heard learned Standing counsel and Dr.
H.N. Tripathi for the respondents.
From the record, we find that the writ petition is lying dormant for the last five years and no effort has been made for hearing of the matter. From the material on record, we are of the view that the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the matter or the cause of action now does not survive.
In view of the above, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to move a recall application if the cause of action still survives or this order causes any prejudice to the interest of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 V.S.Singh