JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. The present petition in the nature of public interest litigation is filed on 25.02.2020, in a nutshell seeking the following reliefs:

(i) An enquiry against scams being perpetrated in brick kilns in Bihar.

(ii) Production of record by the authorities with respect to how many brick kilns have converted to cleaner technology within the two years’ time period according to the Notification of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (for short MoEFCC).

(iii) For direction to implement the above mentioned Notification and for an enquiry against those who have not followed the mandate of the Notification and for the name of the defaulters to be disclosed.

2. Subsequent to the Notification of the MoEFCC, the Bihar State Pollution Control Board issued a Notification 11.10.2017 granting time for brick-kilns within the State of Bihar to adapt cleaner technology by 31.08.2018. The methodology adopted by the Board was that those failing to adapt cleaner technology by 31.08.2018, their licence shall not be renewed. A number of the units had given affidavits that they would shift to the cleaner technology by the above said date, and those who had not done so, i.e. submitted such affidavit, the time to undertake to such a switch was extended to 31.08.2019.

3. Vide CWJC No. 15962 of 2018 titled as Suman Kumar Jha v. The State of Bihar and other connected matters disposed off on 12.04.2018 (Annexure-1, Page-11), a Bench of this Court noted that the cutoff date, that is between those who had submitted an affidavit (undertaking to shift cleaner technology) and those who had not (giving premier to those who sought to delay such a shift), could not be different. In other words, two separate groups among those who were operating pre-existing units, were arbitrary and unsustainable. The operative portion of the order reads thus:

“6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court, before coming on the merits, would indicate that in principle, there cannot be any exception to the decision of the Board and the authorities for ensuring that to protect the environment such measure was required as brick klin units are a cause of major concern towards all the atmospheric pollution. Thus, the Court finds the decision of the Board with regard to the requirement to shifting to Cleaner Technology to be correct, fair and in fact both required and justified.

7. However, coming to the main issue involved in the present writ applications with regard to cut off date, the Court finds that in view of the decision taken by the Board itself, as contained in the notification no. 33 dated 15.10.2018, copy of which has been brought in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, creation of two groups among the pre-existing units is arbitrary and unsustainable. The said distinction relates to not issuing of a C.T.O. to such pre-existing units which have given an undertaking/affidavit that by 31.08.2018 they would be shifting to Cleaner Technology, whereas, with regard to pre-existing units, which had not given such undertaking/affidavit, the cut off date is 31.08.2019. The Court finds that the units which had fallen in line and which had given such undertaking/affidavit have in fact been made into a separate class, and have been visited with penal consequences as compared to the group which had not given any undertaking/affidavit, in whose case, they have been given a premium of further one year to convert to Cleaner Technology. This, in the considered opinion of the Court is not sustainable, being both disciminatory and without any sound rationale. Had the Board not taken a decision to give the benefit beyond 31.8.2019, in case of all pre-existing units, the Court would not have had any occasion to interfere. However, as has been indicated above, giving premium to pre-existing units who have chosen n