Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Baba Ramdev Int Udyog vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control ... on 17 November, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:49374]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22296/2025
M/s. Baba Ramdev Int Udyog, Chak-52F, Muraba No.50, Jorawar
Singh Pura, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar Through
Its Proprietor Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged
About 52 Years, Resident Of L-9, Shrinath Enclave, Suratgarh
Road, Sri Ganganagar.
----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. Regional Officer, Regional Office, Rajasthan State Pollution
Control Board, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sonika Poonia for
Mr. D.S. Thind
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with
Mr. Pravin Kumar Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
17/11/2025
1. Brief facts giving rise to this petition is 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 is duly registered with the Goods and
Services Tax (GST) authorities. For the purpose of establishing and
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 05:17:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49374] (2 of 4) [CW-22296/2025]
operating his industrial units, the petitioner submitted requisite
online applications before the Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board (RSPCB) and was granted Consent to Establish and
subsequently Consent to Operate, which remain valid for an
extended period. Subsequently, the respondent authorities issued
notices to the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 his 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 petitioner, while
submitting his replies, reiterated that his operations are within the
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 05:17:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49374] (3 of 4) [CW-22296/2025]
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.
2. Learned Senior 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
senior 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
present writ petition is allowed and the impugned
orders/notices/communications in the present petition is are
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
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.
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 05:17:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49374] (4 of 4) [CW-22296/2025]
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
23-Arjun/-
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 05:17:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
