Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jogender Singh Dhansoia vs State Of Haryana & Others on 13 February, 2012
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N. Jindal
Civil Writ Petition No.10631 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.10631 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 13.02.2012
Jogender Singh Dhansoia
....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana & others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 2 & 4.
Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for claiming writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by respondent No.4, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a plot in Sector 29, Part-II, Panipat.
The petitioner claims to be involved in the business of manufacturing handloom furnishing etc. since 1998 and said to be registered with the District Industries Centre, Panipat and also with the Central Sales Tax Authorities. The petitioner also claims to be Civil Writ Petition No.10631 of 2009 (O&M) 2 registered with the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce for Export of Goods.
The petitioner has alleged that he is engaged in the job of dyeing and that number of workers have been employed by him. It is asserted by the petitioner that in the survey conducted to identify the units involved in the job of dyeing, the name of the petitioner's unit was not included. The petitioner applied for allotment of plot in response to an advertisement dated 10.07.2007, but the petitioner was not allotted any plot. The petitioner submitted a representation for allotment of plot, which was directed to be decided by this Court in CWP No.18311 of 2008 vide order dated 22.10.2008. Thereafter, a speaking order (Annexure P-15) has been passed, declining the claim of the petitioner for allotment of the plot for the reason that the petitioner's unit is not a dyeing unit.
A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that a survey of the existing dyeing units was conducted in the year 2001 by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board through a Survey Committee. 494 units were identified, out of which, 465 units made requests for allotment of plots. It is also mentioned therein that many firms want allotment of plots in Sector 29, Part-II, Panipat for the reason that the market rate of these plots have gone up as compared to prevailing rate at the time of survey.
Mr. Bhardwaj has brought to the notice of this Court the inspection report conducted by Haryana Pollution Control Board as on 10.09.2009. As per the said report, the petitioner is engaged in stitching, weaving and packaging. It has also been found that the petitioner unit was operating without manufacturing any handloom Civil Writ Petition No.10631 of 2009 (O&M) 3 items.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The policy for allotment of plots in Sector 29, Part II, Panipat is meant for dyeing units, who are causing pollution in the Panipat City, wherein the provision has been made for Common Effluent Treatment Plant, so that the polluted effluent being discharged from the units could be treated. Such policy came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.11839 of 2007 titled "M/s Jagdamba Processors and others Vs. State of Haryana and others" decided on 11.12.2008, wherein it has been held that the policy is for rehabilitation of dyeing units, which are found to have contaminated the ground water. The main object is to provide pollution free atmosphere in the residential/non-conforming areas and, therefore, a 'Dyeing Zone' in Sector 29 Part-II has been carved out.
The reliance of the petitioner on the invoices (Annexure P-
16) to show that the petitioner's unit is engaged in the manufacturing of textiles is not correct. The invoices (Annexure P-16) are the invoices of export of certain textile/handloom goods. Mere export of textile/handloom goods will not make the petitioner a manufacturer, entitled for allotment of a plot in an area specifically developed for the dyeing units.
As per the inspection report, the petitioner's unit is engaged in stitching, weaving and packaging, but is not discharging any polluted effluent. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek right of allotment of a plot situated in an area meant for polluting dyeing units, so that such units are able to avail the benefit of Common Effluent Civil Writ Petition No.10631 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Treatment Plant.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE February 13, 2012 ajp/vimal