ORDER

1. In this original application, registered on the basis of the letter petition sent by one Gyanendra Pandey resident of Raipurganj, Tehsil Laharpur, District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, the plea is about illegal operation of the brick kilns. The complaint of the Applicant was that approximately 280 brick kilns were operating in Sitapur District out of which about 42 were illegally operating mainly in Sitapur and surrounding areas which include 24 in Laharpur, 14 in Mahmoodabad, 2 in Sidhauli and 1 each in Mishrikh and Sitapur Tehsil. These brick kilns were alleged to be violating the norms and causing air pollution.

2. The Tribunal by order dated 27.04.2022 had constituted the Joint Committee with a direction to the Joint Committee to visit the site of all 280 brick kilns, look into the grievance of the Applicant and take remedial action by following due process of law and submit the report within two months.

3. The report of the Joint Committee submitted on 06.09.2022 was taken into account by the Tribunal by order dated 29.09.2022 and 44 Project Proponents (PP) (cid:150) brick kilns found to be violating were impleaded in the OA and notices were issued to them.

4. The Tribunal having regard to the seriousness of the allegation by order dated 19.01.2023 had directed as under:

(cid:147)xxx (cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)xxx(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)xxx

7. In the meanwhile, all the 44 brick kilns in question shall not be operated till further order of this Tribunal. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur shall take requisites steps to ensure that all the 44 brick kilns in question are not operated by the owners till further order of this Tribunal.(cid:148)

5. The Tribunal in the proceedings dated 21.12.2023 had taken note of the stand of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) that Environmental Compensation (EC) was imposed upon 31 units.

6. Thereafter, IA No. 292/2023 was filed by Respondent No. 8 with the plea that he was already having the (cid:145)Consent to Operate(cid:146) (CTO) prior to the passing of the interim order dated 19.01.2023, therefore, he should be kept out of the ambit of that order and the Tribunal, after examining the same on 12.02.2024, had directed as under:

(cid:147)xxx (cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)..xxx(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)..xxx

9. Learned Counsel appearing for UPPCB has not disputed the fact that the applicant had valid CTO could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal on 19.01.2023, hence, interim order has been made applicable to the applicant in I.A. also, who was treated to be amongst 44 industrial units. It has also been pointed out that since the applicant has not violated any norms, therefore, no EC has been imposed on the applicant for the prior period.

10. Having regard to the undisputed circumstances which have been pointed out by the Counsel for the respondent no.8 and also considering the fact that the applicant was granted CTO on 16.12.2022 valid from 12.12.2022 to 31.07.2027 and the said CTO was operating when the 19.01.2023 order was passed by the Tribunal but this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal, we deem it proper to modify the order dated 19.01.2023 passed in the OA. Hence, we direct that the restriction imposed by the Tribunal by the order dated 19.01.2023 will not be applicable to respondent no. 8 (applicant in I.A. No. 292/2023).

11. Learned Counsel appearing for UPPCB has submitted that the applicant i.e. respondent no. 8 is required to adopt zig-zag technology and till that is adopted, the applicant cannot be permitted to operate. We make it clear that if the applicant is found to be