COCP No. 2667 of 2012                                                       1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                         COCP No. 2667 of 2012
                                                   Date of decision : 11.12.2017

Surjit Singh
                                                         ....Petitioner

                                           V/s

Ravinder Singh Sharma & ors.
                                                         ....Respondents

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arjun Sharma, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Ms. Lavanya Paul, AAG Punjab.

Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate for respondent no. 8. RAJAN GUPTA J.

Petitioner alleges violation of order dated 29.09.2011 passed by this court, operative part thereof reads as under:-

"4. Keeping in view the nature of the prayer made, we are of the considered view that it would be expedient to issue direction to respondent no. 2 to take cognizance of the legal notice sent by the petitioners and after due inspection of the area, respondent no. 2 shall take a reasoned decision in accordance with the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. If the respondent no. 5 is found to be violating the provisions of law/policy or rules then appropriate action be initiated against him. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. "

Learned counsel appearing for Pollution Control Board submits that necessary action has already been taken. Proceedings have been 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2017 06:29:29 ::: COCP No. 2667 of 2012 2 initiated against officials of the concerned department who did not grant the NOC for setting up the mechanism for disposal of the sludge water.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from Mr. Rajinder Paul Bansal, XEN, Panchayati Raj, who is present in court, submits that appropriate steps shall be taken to ensure that order passed by writ court is complied with at the earliest, in any case not later than three months.

In view of above, no further direction is necessary. Disposed of.

Rule is discharged.

December 11, 2017                                     (RAJAN GUPTA)
Ajay                                                       JUDGE


       Whether speaking/reasoned:                     Yes/No

       Whether reportable:                            Yes/No




                               2 of 2
            ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2017 06:29:30 :::