Prosecution Of Brick Kilns Causing Air Pollution
1. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal v. Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. (Mathura, UP)
Facts:
Hundreds of brick kilns in Mathura district were burning prohibited fuels like coal, plastic, solvent residues, and tyre waste.
Kilns were situated too close to habitations, hospitals, and schools.
Ambient air quality deteriorated significantly, and kilns operated without proper consent from the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB).
Legal Findings / Court Orders:
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) noted a failure of enforcement: consents were mechanically renewed without assessing ambient air quality.
The Tribunal directed the State PCB to immediately inspect all kilns and ensure compliance with siting and technology norms.
Remedies / Sanctions:
Closure of kilns not complying with standards.
Prosecution proceedings against owners of kilns using prohibited fuels or operating without consent.
Carrying capacity assessment of the area before allowing any kiln to operate.
Significance:
This case emphasizes that regulatory authorities must proactively enforce environmental norms and cannot merely issue notices.
2. Jhammanlal Gautam v. Union of India (Aligarh, UP)
Facts:
Large-scale operation of brick kilns in Aligarh without compliance with siting rules, air pollution consent, or technology upgrade.
Over 300 kilns were operating using outdated Fixed Chimney Bull Trench Kiln (FCBTK) technology.
Kilns were located close together and near residential areas.
Legal Findings / Court Orders:
The NGT observed that only kilns compliant with siting, technology, and consent rules could operate.
Many kilns were issued closure orders, while some were directed to upgrade technology.
Remedies / Sanctions:
Closure of non-compliant kilns.
Prosecution of owners who continued to operate illegally.
Environmental compensation imposed for air pollution damages.
Significance:
It highlights the link between compliance with technology standards and legal operation, showing that violations can lead to prosecution and closure.
3. Anmol Kumar v. State of Bihar (Patna High Court, 2023)
Facts:
Petition challenging the operation of brick kilns in Bihar without obtaining required consent.
BSPCB had allowed partial exemptions for some kilns, creating an arbitrary distinction.
Legal Findings / Court Orders:
Court held the State Board’s exemption policy as arbitrary and unsustainable.
Reiterated the principles of “polluter pays” and precautionary principle.
Remedies / Sanctions:
Closure of kilns operating without consent.
Enforcement of technology upgrade norms.
District authorities directed to ensure compliance.
Significance:
This case reinforces that constitutional principles like the right to clean air under Article 21 and state duties under Articles 48A & 51A(g) can underpin prosecution actions.
4. NCR Brick Kiln Association vs. Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. (Supreme Court, 2022)
Facts:
Operation of brick kilns in the National Capital Region (NCR) was contributing significantly to air pollution.
Kilns were not following declared production capacity and technology guidelines.
Legal Findings / Court Orders:
Supreme Court directed CPCB and State PCBs to conduct unannounced inspections.
Kilns must operate only after obtaining valid consent and using approved technology.
Remedies / Sanctions:
Prosecution for kilns violating consent conditions.
Closure of non-compliant kilns.
Significance:
Introduced the concept of surprise inspections as a tool to enforce compliance effectively.
5. Dinesh Chahal v. Union of India (NCR Brick Kilns, 2018)
Facts:
Brick kilns operating beyond carrying capacity in NCR, without technology upgrades, and violating siting criteria.
Legal Findings / Court Orders:
NGT directed kilns to operate seasonally, using Zig-Zag technology only.
Kilns had to declare production capacity and comply with siting rules.
Remedies / Sanctions:
Closure of non-compliant kilns.
Restriction on operations during high pollution periods.
Prosecution for operating illegally beyond capacity or without consent.
Significance:
Demonstrates temporal restrictions and technology mandates as enforceable measures for pollution control.
6. M/S Bismillah Brick Kiln v. UT of J&K & Ors. (J&K High Court, 2024)
Facts:
Kiln operating without State PCB consent.
Expansion or new kilns permitted despite non-compliance.
Legal Findings / Court Orders:
Kilns without consent must face enforcement action.
Expansion prohibited until compliance ensured.
Remedies / Sanctions:
Closure of non-compliant units.
Enforcement of siting and technology norms.
Potential prosecution for unauthorized operations.
Significance:
Shows that prosecution principles apply uniformly across Indian states, not just in NCR or UP.
Key Takeaways from All Cases
Consent and Clearance: Operating without CTO/EC invites prosecution.
Technology Compliance: Use of outdated FCBTK technology or prohibited fuels is punishable.
Siting Rules: Proximity to habitations and clustering norms are strictly enforced.
Ambient Air Standards: Kilns can be prosecuted even if stack emissions comply, if ambient air quality is breached.
Enforcement Tools: Closure orders, environmental compensation, and prosecution are standard remedies.
Constitutional Backing: Right to clean air (Article 21), state duties (48A, 51A(g)) strengthen legal authority for prosecution.
RELATED Blog
comments