GAHC010253572024

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/6417/2024

MINAJUL ALAM

S/O- MAJIBUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ROWMARI, P.O.-

SOLMARI, SADAR NAGAON, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST AND

ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

2:THE CHAIRMAN

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

ASSAM

BAMUNIMAIDAM

GUWAHATI-21

3:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

NAGAON

ASSAM

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

NAGAON SADAR REVENUE CIRCLE

NAGAON

ASSAM

5:SADDAM HUSSAIN

S/O- HUSSAIN ALI

VILLAGE- ROWMARI

P.O.- SOLMARI

PIN- 782002

DIST NAGAO

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY, MR F Z MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, MR. S BARUAH, SC, PCBA,MR. S BARUAH (R-

2),MS A HUSSAIN (R-5),S AHMED(R-5),GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

ORDER

24.10.2025 Heard Mr F Z Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitoiner. Also heard Mr S Barua, learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board, and Mr B J Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr P K Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. None appears for the respondent No. 5, although an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5.

3. Mr F Z Mazumdar has drawn the attention of this Court to the guidelines on brick manufacturing unit annexed with the petition, more specifically to the provisions of Clause-4, to state that certain norms have to be adhered to by the brick kiln, before it is established.

4. Mr Mazumdar has, thereafter, drawn our attention to the purported deed of land lease executed in favour of the respondent No. 5 to show that the lease deed being only for a period of 3 (three) years, the consent to establish and operate ought not have been issued by the Pollution Control Board.

5. Mr Mazumdar has also submitted that Clause-7 relating to the pollution control measures, Clause-10 which relates environmental care and green belt development, have also not been adhered to by the respondent No. 5, when he is operating the brick kiln.

6. Mr S Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board has placed before this Court, the consolidated consent authorization issued on 29.01.2025, by the Pollution Control Board, expressing consent of the Board to operate the brick field owned by the respondent No. 5 with validity till 31.03.2025. He, therefore, submits that the brick kiln appears to be operated by following the due norms. He, has, however, prayed for 3 (three) weeks’ time to file his affidavit in response to the writ petition and bring on record, the initial consent to establish along with the consent to operate issue, thereafter, if any, from time to time.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the State respondents also seeks some time, to have their instructions on the allegations raised in the writ petition.

8. The notice in this writ petition was issued on 06.12.2024.

9. The respondents are allowed a further period of 3 (three) weeks’ time to file their response to the writ petition.

10. The petitioner may file rejoinder to the affidavits filed by the respondents, within period of 2 (two) weeks, thereafter.

11. List the matter again in the second week of December, 2025, along with the pleadings proposed to be filed by the parties.

12. The respondent No. 5 has already filed their affidavit-in-opposition and a reply has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

13. Mr Baruah shall keep available the scanned copies of the records of the application made by the respondent No. 5, along with the other documents, which were referred to while giving the consent to establish and operate.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant