Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Choudhary Bricks Industries vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:48917]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16606/2022
M/s Choudhary Bricks Industries, Chak 365, Head, 1 Kyd, Tehsil
Rawla, District Sri Ganganagar Through Its Proprietor Vijay Bhambu
S/o Shri Kuldeep Bhambhu, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of 45
Madhuwan Colony, Near Vridh Aashram, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----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 Board Of
Pollution), Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DS Thind
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with
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 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
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 05:09:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48917] (2 of 3) [CW-16606/2022]
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 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.
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 05:09:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48917] (3 of 3) [CW-16606/2022]
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
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/235-
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 05:09:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
