HEMLATA
CWP No.15828 of 2014                         -1-            2014.08.14 11:37
                                                            I attest to the accuracy and
                                                            integrity of this document

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH

                                     CWP No. 15828 of 2014 (O&M)
                                        Date of decision:11.08.2014

M/s New Krishna Stone Industries                   ... Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Punjab and others                         ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
       ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

Present:     Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

                    ****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reports or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ***** ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACJ (Oral) The grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority constituted under the provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 be decided expeditiously.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is having a stone crusher at Pathankot which is more than 50 meters away from the river edge and despite that the respondents have issued orders Annexure P7 asking the petitioner to dismantle the stone crusher as HEMLATA CWP No.15828 of 2014 -2- 2014.08.14 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document according to them the stone crusher is on the riverbed. Learned counsel further submits that this factual position is incorrect as the petitioner's stone crusher is more than 50 meters away from the river edge, which is also clear from the Committee's report, Annexure P6. For this the petitioner has filed appeal, Annexure P11 alongwith an application for stay of the impugned orders, Annexure P7 and however, the same has not been listed for preliminary hearing so far.

It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that irreparable loss would be caused if the stay application is not heard and the stone crusher is dismantled.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the stay application filed by the petitioner on 12.08.2014 or 13.08.2014.

Copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of Bench Secretary.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) JUDGE 11.08.2014 hemlata