The National Green Tribunal has reaffirmed that environmental regulators cannot remain passive in the face of documented violations. In a decisive order, the Tribunal compelled the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board to act on longstanding complaints against an unauthorised brick kiln, reinforcing that statutory compliance is not optional but a mandatory public duty.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Firoz Khan, alleged that M.H. Brick Works, operating at Khata No. 187 and 185 in Faridpur Singara Patti, Moradabad, has been functioning since 2015 without obtaining mandatory environmental clearances under the Uttar Pradesh Brick Kilns (Siting Criteria for Establishment) Rules, 2012. The unit allegedly lacks both Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CTE) and Certificate of Operation (CTO), which are statutory prerequisites for lawful operation.
Procedural History
- 2015: Brick kiln commenced operations without statutory permissions
- Prior to 2024: Multiple complaints filed with local authorities, no action taken
- 08.08.2024: RTI reply from UPPCB confirmed absence of CTE and CTO
- 12.01.2026: Formal complaint submitted to Regional Officer, UPPCB, Moradabad
- 27.02.2026: Original Application filed before National Green Tribunal
Relief Sought
The applicant sought immediate cessation of operations and enforcement of environmental norms by the UPPCB, including spot inspection, penalty imposition, and closure if violations were confirmed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether environmental regulators like the UPPCB are obligated to act on documented complaints of statutory non-compliance, even in the absence of a formal enforcement order, and whether inaction constitutes a violation of the duty to protect the environment under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the applicant relied on M.C. Mehta v. Union of India to argue that the state has a non-delegable duty to enforce environmental laws. The RTI reply and the failure to act on the January 2026 complaint demonstrated systemic neglect. The applicant contended that natural justice requires regulators to respond to complaints, not merely receive them.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not appear or file any written submission. The Tribunal noted the absence of any defence or explanation for continued operation without clearances.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the statutory framework under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Uttar Pradesh Brick Kilns Rules, 2012, which explicitly require CTE and CTO. It held that the UPPCB’s failure to act on the RTI disclosure and the formal complaint amounted to dereliction of statutory duty. The Court emphasized that environmental protection is not contingent on litigation but requires proactive monitoring.
"It is the responsibility of the UPPCB to look into the said complaint and ascertain the compliance of environmental norms... and ensure that the said brick kiln does not operate without requisite environmental clearances."
The Tribunal rejected the notion that regulatory inaction could be justified due to administrative backlog. It affirmed that natural justice demands a reasoned response to complaints, even if no immediate closure order is issued. The Tribunal further noted that repeated non-compliance without consequence undermines the entire regulatory architecture.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The National Green Tribunal held that regulatory agencies must act on documented violations and directed the UPPCB to complete a spot inspection and take lawful action within two months, in compliance with natural justice and statutory obligations.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Regulatory Inaction Is Not an Option
- Practitioners can now cite this order to compel UPPCB or other PCBs to act on RTI-confirmed violations
- Failure to respond to complaints within a reasonable time may be challenged as a violation of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Environmental NGOs and affected citizens may file follow-up applications if regulators miss the two-month deadline
Documentary Evidence Is Sufficient to Trigger Enforcement
- RTI replies confirming absence of CTE/CTO constitute prima facie proof of violation
- No need to wait for expert reports or lab tests before initiating enforcement
- Courts will treat such documents as conclusive unless rebutted by the violator
Natural Justice Applies to Regulatory Processes
- Regulators must provide notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing penalties
- This order clarifies that the duty to hear applies even during preliminary inspections
- Procedural compliance is not a technicality - it is a substantive legal requirement
