Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Laxmi Bricks Udhyog vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:48929]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18278/2022
M/s Laxmi Bricks Udhyog, Chak 5 Jm, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District
Sri Ganganagar Through Its Proprietor Smt. Urmila Godara W/o
Surender Godara, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident
Of House No. 537, Ward No. 20, New Mandi Gharsana, Tehsil
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 05:10:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48929] (2 of 4) [CW-18278/2022]
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 05:10:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48929] (3 of 4) [CW-18278/2022]
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 05:10:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48929] (4 of 4) [CW-18278/2022]
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/238-
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 05:10:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
