Dismissed

Bahadur Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Dec 2011CWP/17173/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL filed by Bahadur Singh seeking to shut down a brick kiln operating in violation of distribution norms. The court held that the petitioner misused PIL jurisdiction because an underlying private litigation existed between him and the kiln owner, violating PIL maintainability rules. The petition was dismissed with costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; costs of Rs.20,000 to be deposited with Member Secretary, Punjab Legal Aid Services Authority.

Bahadur Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Environment and Pollution | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.17173 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : 19.12.2011

Bahadur Singh

....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

¶7

....RESPONDENT(S)

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr.Babbar Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶12

Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

Mr.S.S.Brar, Advocate, for Mr.Vikram K.Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶14

¶15

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶16

M.M.KUMAR, J

¶17

The instant petition has been filed in Public Interest Litigation with a prayer for issuance of a direction to respondent No.4 M/s DBT Brick Kiln, Village Parol, Tehsil Majri, District Mohali, to stop operation as the Brick Kiln is operating in violation of the Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies Price and Distribution Control Order, 1998.

¶18

In reply filed by the Punjab Pollution Control Board-respondent No.2, it is revealed that the complaint has been filed only by the petitioner, who is the resident of the area for the reasons that some litigation is going on between the complainant and the Brick Kiln Owner over a piece of land. A reference to aforesaid litigation has also been made in the

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No.17173 of 2010(O&M) -2-

¶20

report, submitted by the Environmental Engineer on 15.03.2010 (Annexure R-5). Even otherwise, respondent No.4 has not violated any provision of law or siting parameters fixed for setting up a brick kiln. The brick kiln was set up in the year 1982 and the siting parameters prevalent at that time were revised in the year 1999. Thereafter, the brick kiln has been complying with the emission norms. The anti pollution control devise has been complied with by installing chimney in 2001, as has been revealed from the reply, filed by respondent No.2. On that basis, consent was granted on 07.03.2001 (Annexure R-4) for a period of 15 years.

¶21

The aforesaid facts would reveal that there is complete misuse of the public interest litigation jurisdiction by the petitioner as it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the litigation between the father of the petitioner and respondent No.4 is pending. By invoking PIL jurisdiction the petitioner has violated Rule 2 and 7 of Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules 2010 framed by this Court. Therefore no such litigation could have been filed by the petitioner. Moreover, the factum of pendency of litigation has not been disclosed in the writ petition.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-. The amount of cost be deposited with Member Secretary, Punjab Legal Aid Services Authority.

¶23

(M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE

¶24

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

¶25

December 19, 2011 MAMTA

Bahadur Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bahadur Singh v. State of Punjab 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

Sadhu Singh Vs the District Judge,Rupnagar etc.

Senior Superintdent of Post Offices, Ludhiana Vs Baljit Singh and Anr.

Malwinderjit Sngh Waraich Vs UOI

M/S Tibrewala Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Haryana Financial Corpn. and Ors.

Gurbachan Singh and Ors. Vs Amritsar Improvement Trust Amritsar and Ors.

Ram Bilas Vs State of Haryana and Ors.