01Facts
The petitioner sought a direction requiring the authorities to inspect and enquire into alleged nuisance, air pollution, and environmental violations by the eleventh respondent’s country brick kiln, and to act on his representation dated 23 September 2026.
In an earlier writ petition, the Court had dismissed the petitioner’s request to stop the kiln after noting its registration certificate dated 10 June 2025, while granting liberty to pursue proceedings concerning any nuisance in accordance with law.
p. 3In this petition, the petitioner relied on the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change notification dated 22 February 2022, which specifies a minimum stack height of 14 metres for certain vertical shaft brick kilns with capacity below 30,000 bricks per day.
p. 3The Pollution Control Board stated that the country brick kiln did not fall within its purview and that any grievance should be taken up with the local authorities.
p. 402Issues
i.Whether the petitioner established that the 22 February 2022 notification’s stack-height requirement applied to the eleventh respondent’s country brick kiln.
pp. 3–5ii.Whether the petitioner placed sufficient material to establish that the kiln caused nuisance to him, warranting the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.
p. 503Law Applied
Article 226 confers discretionary jurisdiction, which the Court may decline to exercise where the petitioner does not establish a basis for the requested relief.
p. 5The Court considered the 22 February 2022 Ministry notification concerning minimum stack height for specified vertical shaft brick kilns, but the petitioner had to demonstrate that the notification applied to the country brick kiln in question.
p. 3 · p. 5The Court also considered the earlier order in W.P. (MD) No. 26016 of 2026, which had dismissed the challenge to the kiln’s operation while permitting the petitioner to pursue any nuisance grievance in accordance with law.
pp. 3–404Reasoning
The Court found that the kiln was a country brick kiln and that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the notification’s requirements for vertical shaft brick kilns applied to it.
p. 5The petitioner had also produced no material showing that the kiln’s operation caused him nuisance.
p. 5In the absence of proof on either point, the Court found no basis to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the petitioner’s favour.
p. 505Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the petitioner had established neither the applicability of the cited notification to the country brick kiln nor that the kiln caused him nuisance.
p. 5No costs were ordered.
p. 5Original Court PDF
Prabhu RvsThe District Collector
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
