Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Faze Three Limited vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 January, 2012
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N. Jindal
CWP No.1973 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1973 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 12.01.2012
M/s Faze Three Limited ....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus claiming same relief as granted to other dyeing units at Panipat in terms of the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 8497 of 2009 titled "The Panipat Dyers Association Vs. The State of Haryana" on 18.05.2010.
The petitioner is a dyeing unit at Panipat. With a view to relocate the dyeing units in one area having facilities for effluent treatment etc., a letter of allotment was issued to the petitioner on 04.06.2008 alloting a plot in Sector 29, Panipat, which area was to have common facilities. In terms of the said letter of allotment, the petitioner was to start construction of building within a period of one year, as per approved building plan. It was also a condition that the unit must go into production after constructing minimum about 25% covered area within three years. Since the petitioner has not started CWP No.1973 of 2011 (O&M) 2 construction in terms of the letter of allotment, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Pollution control statues, which led the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court earlier.
This Court vide order dated 22.09.2008 passed in CWP No. 19296 of 2007 filed by the Petitioner, directed the petitioner to shift to new location on or before 31.03.2010. It was further ordered that the closure notice issued by Pollution Control Board shall not be given effect to. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted 18 months time from July, 2009 to shift to new location vide order dated 09.04.2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that Panipat Dyers Association has filed CWP No.8032 of 2007, wherein the Court has noticed the status of development activities in the area where units were to relocate and granted time to the allottees to submit building plans within one month and further ordered that the construction shall be carried out in accordance with the building regulations after submitting building plans and securing appropriate sanction in terms of the conditions in the allotment letter. The petitioner claims that since the other dyeing units have been granted time to shift to the new locations in Sector 29, Panipat, the petitioner is entitled to the same time schedule to shift to the new location.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and is of the opinion that substantially, the present writ petition is an application for extension of time granted by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. CWP No.19296 of 2007.
The respondents cannot treat different dyeing units in the area of Panipat differently. If the memebrs of the Dyers Association has CWP No.1973 of 2011 (O&M) 3 been granted time to shift to the new location in terms of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit as is granted to the other members of the association. In the aforesaid writ petition, this court directed the units to complete construction in the manner provided under the letters of allotment. The petitioners were given outer limit of one year from the date of order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken to shift to the new location on or before 31.12.2012 and sought direction to validate the sanction of building plans and for the water connection.
In view of the undertaking given and the order passed in the writ petition filed by the dyeing association, we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents or such other concerned authorities, to validate the building plans and water connection forthwith preferably by the end of January, 2012 and that the petitioner shall shift to the new location on or before 31st December 2012. In case, the petitioner fails to shift to the new location within time granted as per undertaking given, the respondent authorities shall be competent to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this court for violation of undertaking given to this court and to take such other steps as are permissible in law against the defaulting unit.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE January 12, 2012 ajp/vimal