IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
             AT CHANDIGARH


                                   Civil Revision No. 5147 of 2008
                                   Date of Decision : September 23, 2008


Baru Ram and others
                                                             ....Petitioners
                                 Versus
Balvinder Singh and others
                                                           .....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present :   Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate
            for respondents No.1 to 3/Caveators.

T.P.S. MANN, J.

In a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction filed by respondents No. 1 to 3/Caveators, learned trial Court, while disposing of their appliction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C., restrained the defendants, i.e. petitioners and respondents No. 4 and 5 from running their Bhatties at the spot till the crops of the plaintiffs were harvested or till the time they themselves complied with the suggestions made by the expert with regard to the construction of room and height of chimney. The said decision was upheld in appeal by learned lower appellate Court. Hence, present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Revision No. 5147 of 2008 -2-

The plaintiffs are agriculturists by profession, whereas the defendants have installed aluminum/peter salt/naushadar Bhatties in their land, which is contiguous to the land of the plaintiffs, without getting necessary licence/permission from the Pollution Control Board wherein the plaintiffs have also set up their farm and residential houses. According to the plaintiffs, operation of the Bhatties of the defendants damaged their standing crops and also on account of the smoke emanating therefrom, it was difficult for the plaintiffs to live in their houses. Even their servants refused to stay with them.

The stand of the defendants is that they do not require any licence or permission from the Air Pollution Control Board for running their Bhatties as the area had not been declared as Air Pollution Control Area. Further, the plaintiffs have not been able to place any material on the record to show that their crops were damaged on account of the smoke/fumes coming out on account of operation of the Bhatties.

It may be that the area, in which the plaintiffs live and carry out agricultural operations, has not been declared an Air Pollution Control Area, but that would not give a licence to the defendants to carry on with such an activity, which would result in smoke and fumes coming out and polluting the clean environment of the villages. In fact, by their operations, the right to fresh air and of clean environment to the plaintiffs, stands interfered.

Learned trial Court had constituted a Committee of a Regional Officer of Air Pollution Control Board, who, along with Dr. Bahadur, visited the village of the parties and reported that two units were in operation at the spot, which were engaged in purifying of crude ammonium chloride. The process required conversion of waste of bangles which was put in bottle shaped conical bulbs to which crude ammonium chloride was filled and the neck of the bulb thereafter closed. These bulbs /bottles are kept in the Bhatties, which is shown the fire by waste of rice husk and Parali, along with wood at side. These Bhatties emit smoke in the atmosphere. Another source of pollution was the bursting of the bulbs/bottles, as a result of which white fumes having odour of ammonia gas, besides ammonium chloride and hydrochloric acid come out and pollute the atmosphere. Height of the chimney was only 30 ft. According to the Committee, height of the chimney was not adequate. Though the Committee opined that the report regarding damage to the crop could be sought only from the Expert of some agriculture university, yet the Committee informed the learned trial Court that the fumes emitted from the Bhatties were harmful to the crops of the plaintiffs, which were in the close vicinity of the Bhatties of the defendants. Learned trial Court required the defendants to construct a room and raise height of the chimney as suggested by the Expert but a Local Commissioner appointed by the Court reported back that no compliance had been made by the Civil Revision No. 5147 of 2008 -4- defendants. On the other hand, defendants kept on harping upon their stand that they had already applied to the Air Pollution Control Board for taking the control measures and would comply with the conditions/suggestions as soon as the concerned authority required them to do so. It was under these circumstances that the learned trial Court had to pass an order of restraint against them from running the Bhatties at the spot till the crops of the plaintiffs were harvested or till the time they complied with the suggestions made by the Expert with regard to the construction of room and height of chimney.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has also drawn the attention of the Court to notification dated April 25, 1985 issued by Secretary to Government, Haryana, Environment Department vide which whole of the State of Haryana was declared as the Air Pollution Control Area for the purposes of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned orders passed by learned lower Courts.

The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                                     ( T.P.S. MANN )
September 23, 2008                                        JUDGE
satish