Janpad Ent Nirmata Samiti Bullandshar U. P. Through Its Secretary vs. Central Pollution Control Board

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL Diary No. 18213/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-02-2021 in OA No. 1016/2019 passed by the National Green Tribunal) NCR BRICK KILN ASSOCIATION Petitioner(s) VERSUS CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS. Respondent(s) [ONLY I.A. NO. 104689/2022 IN CONNECTED DIARY NO. 20331/2021 TO BE LISTED] WITH Diary No(s). 20331/2021 (XVII) (IA No. 104689/2022 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Date : 26-09-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For parties Mr. Aniket Jhain, Adv. Mr. Subodh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv. Mr. Umang Shankar, AOR Mr. Vidyut Kayarkar, Adv. Mr. Anil Grover, Sr.AAG. Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv. Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Ms. Mohini Kumari, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv. Ms. Veena Bansal, Adv. Mr. Sourav Jindal, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, AOR Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR Ms. Soumya Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Shilp Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2022.09.27 17:17:01 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Ms. Aparnba Rohatgi Jain, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Kasana, Adv. Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR Mr. Rohan Thawani, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Mr. Pratul Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Mantavya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Parul Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vijay Pal, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

IA No. 104689/2022 in C.A. Diary No. 20331/2021

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, applicant before the National Green Tribunal and also learned counsel for the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).

We direct respondent No. 2 (CPCB) to inspect 25 brick kilns, the details of which are mentioned in Annexure 'A' for the purpose of the ascertaining whether they are zig zag kilns with valid consent to operate and the production capacity declared.

We also make it clear that neither the pendency of the proceedings before this Court nor the orders which have been passed already will stand in the way of the second respondent in carrying out its duty under the law. The second respondent in carrying out the inspection of the 25 brick kilns in question will also ascertain whether the brick kilns are in conformity with all the other requirements which have been the subject matter of the various orders passed by this Court.

(NIDHI AHUJA) (RENU KAPOOR) AR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR