Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
C.W.P. No.19634 of 2010 (O&M 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.19634 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 15.5.2013 Harish Kumar --Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others --Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain,Judge Present: Mr.Mukul Agarwal,Advocate,for the applicant/petitioner Mr.Anil Rathee,Addl.A.G, Haryana.
Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr.Amit Jain,Advocate, for respondent Nos. 6 to 9 Mr.P.S.Bajwa,Addl.A.G.Punjab, for respondent No.11 Jasbir Singh, ACJ: (Oral) In this writ petition, it is grievance of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are running their stone crushers without complying with the provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981. It is further alleged that they have not got any permission from the Pollution Control Board for running their stone crushers.
After notice, various orders were passed. During the pendency of this petition, it came to the notice of this Court that respondent Nos.7 to 9 have stopped operation of their stone crushers in C.W.P. No.19634 of 2010 (O&M 2 terms of the orders passed against them by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board and against the orders of the Board, the appeals preferred by them are pending decision.
On the last date of hearing, following order was passed by this Court:-
"It is stated at the bar that respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are not operating any stone crusher and their appeal is pending before the competent authority. It is further stated that responentNo.6 is operating stone crusher as per norms, whereas to the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.6 is operating stone crusher in violating of the norms as depicted in Annexures P- 15 dated 18.12.1997 and P-16 dated 30.10.1998, respectively.
Regional Officer of the Pollution Control Board ,Gurgaon is directed to personally verify the facts raised by the petitioner against respondent No.6. If it is found that respondent No.6 is violating any of the terms and conditions of the notifications, as referred to above or any other provisions of law, it be stopped forthwith. Necessary verification be done before the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 15.5.2013.
In the meanwhile, the Appellate Authority before whom the appeals of respondents No.6 and 7 to 9 are pending, shall make an efforts to decide those appeals expeditiously".
In response to the afore-mentioned order, an affidavit of Mr.Bhupender Singh Rinwa, Regional Officer, Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Gurgaon Region South, has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that respondent No.6 is fulfilling the minimum criteria as per norms. No other deficiency has been pointed out. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.6 is C.W.P. No.19634 of 2010 (O&M 3 operating the stone crusher after getting necessary permission from the Pollution Control Board.
In view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice 15.5.2013 ( Rakesh Kumar Jain ) rr Judge