Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Harsimran Screening Plant & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 5 January, 2015
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Deepak Sibal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 15939 of 2014 ( O&M )
DATE OF DECISION : 05.01.2015
M/s Harsimran Screening Plant, Village Mubarakpur and another
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
Present : Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Athwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) In the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the directions issued by the Punjab Pollution Control Board (respondent No.2) vide letter dated 24.07.2014 (Annexure P-7) on the basis of the report dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure P-4), as well as the order dated 24.07.2014 (Annexure P-8) and the letter dated 24.07.2014 (Annexure P-9).
It is the main contention of the petitioners that these directions were issued without conducting proper survey and a wrong finding was recorded with regard to location of the screening plant. DASS NAROTAM 2015.01.07 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 15939 of 2014 ( O&M ) -2-
In pursuance of the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by this court, a fresh survey has been conducted. In a connected petition (CWP No. 15917 of 2014, titled as M/s Monga Stone Crusher Village Anehar, Tehsil and District Pathankot versus State of Punjab and others), learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record affidavit of the State Geologist, Department of Industries & Commerce, Punjab, along with the survey report (Annexure R-1).
Learned counsel for the respondents state that in view of the said report, cases of different screening plants, who are petitioners in various writ petitions, including the instant petition, will be re-considered, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the effected persons.
In view of the said statement, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners do not want to press this petition with liberty to raise all the points, if necessary, before the competent authority.
Dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid liberty. Since the issue pertains to environment, therefore, we direct that the authority shall take a final decision in the matter within a period of two months.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
January 05, 2015 ( DEEPAK SIBAL )
ndj JUDGE
DASS NAROTAM
2015.01.07 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document