Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Ganpati Bricks vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:48932]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19448/2022
M/s Ganpati Bricks, Chak 3 Mlk A, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri
Ganganagar Through Its Proprietor Smt. Sushma Bansal W/o
Shri Praveen Kumar, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Mehtab
Colony, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its
Member Secretary, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jhalana
Dungari, Jaipur.
2. Environment Engineer (Env. Comp.), Rajasthan State
Pollution Control Board, Headquarter, 4 Institutional Area,
Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur.
3. Appellate Authority, Air (Prevention And Control Of
Pollution), Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DS Thind
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with
Mr. Pravin Kumar Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order 13/11/2025
1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner firm is engaged in the business of operating Int Bhattas (brick kilns) established on lands duly converted from agricultural to industrial use by the competent authorities. The petitioner has obtained necessary mining permits from the Mining Department from time to time and are duly registered with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities. For the purpose of establishing and operating their industrial units, the petitioner submitted requisite online (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 05:12:11 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 06:31:42 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48932] (2 of 4) [CW-19448/2022] applications before the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) and were granted Consent to Establish and subsequently Consent to Operate, which remain valid for an extended period. Subsequently, the respondent authorities issued notices to the petitioners proposing to impose penalties under the head of environmental compensation. Thereafter, orders were passed imposing substantial penalties on the basis of the polluter pays principle and directing payment of the assessed amounts, without furnishing any emission reports or other material forming the basis of such assessment. The petitioners submitted detailed replies denying any breach of prescribed emission norms and requested the respondents to supply the documents relied upon for computing the alleged environmental compensation. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners preferred statutory appeals before the appellate authority, which remain pending consideration. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that several similarly situated industrial units were subjected to identical proceedings, and their appeals also remain undecided. Consequently, multiple writ petitions came to be filed before this Court, which were disposed of by treating the impugned penalty orders as show-cause notices and directing the RSPCB to pass fresh orders after affording due opportunity of hearing, while restraining any coercive action in the meantime. Despite such directions, further notices were issued by the respondent authorities proposing revocation of the Consent to Operate in case of failure to deposit the assessed amount. The petitioners, while submitting their replies, reiterated that their operations are within the prescribed emission norms and no violation has been (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 05:12:11 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 06:31:42 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48932] (3 of 4) [CW-19448/2022] committed. In these circumstances, the petitioner has once again approached this Court challenging the subsequent communications/orders issued by the respondent-RSPCB demanding payment of environmental compensation and threatening coercive measures, seeking appropriate reliefs in accordance with law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment dated 30.10.2025 passed in the case of M/s. Tata Bricks Company Vs. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.645/2025, decided on 30.10.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent is in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the issue involved is squarely covered by the case of M/s. Tata Bricks Company (supra).
4. Thus, in view of the submissions made, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders/notices/communications in the present writ petition is hereby quashed and set aside.
5. It is hereby directed that if any amount has been collected or deposited in lieu of demand raised vide impugned orders/notices/communications, the same shall be refunded to the respective petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if amounts are not deposited or collected, the respondent - RSPCB shall not take any further action.
6. However, the respondent - RSPCB can impose and collect restitutionary and compensatory damages so also damages qua (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 05:12:11 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 06:31:42 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48932] (4 of 4) [CW-19448/2022] potential environmental damage while exercising powers under Sections 33A of the Act of 1974 and 31A of the Act of 1981 provided the subordinate legislation is enacted detailing the principles and procedure incorporating basic principles of natural justice.
6. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J surabhii/240- (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 05:12:11 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 06:31:42 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)