CWP No.15738 of 2014                                                               [1]




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                                                                      CWP No. 15738 of 2014(O&M)
                                                                   Date of Decision: August 8, 2014.

             M/s New Jai Shiva Stone Crusher
                                                                        ...... PETITIONER (s)

                                              Versus

             State of Punjab and others
                                                                        ...... RESPONDENT (s)


             CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                    HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL


             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 Singh Omkar 2014.08.08 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.15738 of 2014 [2] petitioner to dismantle the stone crusher as 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 11.08.2014 or 12.08.2014.

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

( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ( LISA GILL ) August 8, 2014. JUDGE 'om' Singh Omkar 2014.08.08 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh