Disposed

Narender Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2009CWP/12988/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a public interest litigation regarding alleged environmental pollution from poultry units burning dead birds, the court directed the Pollution Control Board to expedite proceedings initiated via show cause notices within three months and dispose of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Haryana Pollution Control Board to conclude proceedings initiated against the polluting units within three months.

Narender Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Environment and Pollution | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 12988 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.02.2009

Narender Singh

..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and others ..Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶8

Present : Mr. Sanjay S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner

¶9

Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶10

Mr. Arun Jindal and Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 4

¶11

¶12

T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral)

¶13

CM No. 3074 of 2009

¶14

Allowed. Counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 is taken

¶15

on record and CM disposed off.

¶16

CWP No. 12988 of 2008

¶17

In this petition filed in public interest, the only prayer made by the petitioner is for a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.2 and 3 to close down the poultry units of Skylark Industries-respondent No.4 in the petition. According to the averments made in the writ petition, respondent No.4 Company has established poultry units in village Ikkas, Tehsil and District Jind, in which the said Company is using a furnace for

¶18

CWP No. 12988 of 2008 [2]

¶19

burning dead birds in the process, causing environmental pollution. The petitioner's case appears to be that the unit established in the name of M/s Neetu Poultry Farm in village Ikkas is a branch of Skylark run by respondent No.4 which assertion has been denied by respondent No.4 in the counter affidavit filed on its behalf. Respondent No.4 states that it has a unit in village Anta, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind and that it has no concern with Neetu Poultry Farm. It is also alleged that petitioner has filed the present petition with a view to settle personal scores with the promoters of respondent No.4 company.

¶20

Mr. Walia, learned counsel appearing for Haryana Pollution Control Board submits that subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit in this Court by the Board, the Board has issued show cause notices to both M/s Sky Lark Hatcheries (P) Ltd. And Neetu Poultry Farm and also to respondent No.4 company pointing out that the said units are causing environmental pollution on account of the use of furnace for burning of dead birds. He submits that appropriate legal process has been initiated against the defaulting units and this writ petition could be disposed of with appropriate direction so that action already initiated can be taken to its logical conclusion.

¶21

We see no reason to decline that prayer. Even otherwise, the question whether Neetu Poultry Farm or the poultry unit established by respondent No.4 are causing any environmental pollution, is a matter which the appropriate authorities in the Pollution Control Board are expected to examine in accordance with law after the said units respond to the notices issued to them. The appropriate orders passed by the competent authorities then could be appealed against by the aggrieved party in

¶22

CWP No. 12988 of 2008

¶23

[3]

¶24

appropriate further proceedings before the competent authorities. All that we need say is that the Pollution Control Board shall take the proceedings initiated by it in terms of the notices referred to by Mr. Walia to their logical conclusion expeditiously but not later than within three months from the date of this order.

¶25

This writ petition is accordingly disposed off with the above directions leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶26

(T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶28

17.02.2009 'ravinder'

Narender Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narender Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Ghai Vs M C Ludhiana and Ors.

Kanwarjit Singh Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Punjab State Warehousing Corp. Vs Punjab Ware House Field and Ors.(Dismissed in Default)

M/S Twenty First Century Steels (P) Ltd. Vs Comm. Central Excise, Chandigarh

Krishan Kumar Vs Commissioner of Customs, Rohtak and Anr.

Daya Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.