Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Jai Panj Peer Stone Crusher vs State Of Punjab And Others on 26 April, 2012
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
CWP No. 7624 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: April 26, 2012
CWP No. 7624 of 2012
M/s Jai Panj Peer Stone Crusher
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, ACJ.
1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing of order dated 09.04.2012 (P-14) and subsequent order dated 09.04.2012 (P-15).
2. In pursuance of direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 22220 of 2011 decided on 30.11.2011 (Karam Singh and others v. State of Punjab) (P-11), the authorities under the various provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for brevity 'the Air Act') and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for brevity 'the Water Act') issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 21 of the Air Act on 28.03.2012 (P-13). Thereafter on 09.04.2012, direction under Section 31-A of the Air Act and 33-A of the Water Act were issued. Consequently, the stone crusher of the petitioner was shut down.
CWP No. 7624 of 2012 -2-
3. Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing has conceded that no reply to the show cause notice (P-13) was filed and neither any remedy was availed against P-14 and P-15 pursuant to which stone crusher belonging to the petitioner has been shut down. Mr. Aggarwal, undertakes on behalf of the petitioner to file reply within one week from today and if any, such reply is filed then respondent No.3 shall look into the reply and decide the same expeditiously preferably within two weeks of its receipt. There is complete machinery provided under the Act which includes the appellate authority also. In cases where siting parameters are disputed as is the position in the present case, the High Court ordinarily refrain from the deciding those disputed question and the remedy provided by the Statute has to be exhausted. Accordingly, the aforesaid course has been adopted.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
5. A copy of the order be given to learned counsel for the petitioner dasti on payment of usual charges.
(M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE April 26, 2012 Atul