Disposed

Birampal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Nov 2011CWP/21243/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking directions to the Haryana State Pollution Control Board to decide a pending representation alleging pollution violation. The court directed the Board to decide expeditiously within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the representation dated 18.07.2011 expeditiously within three months or refer it to respondent No. 3 if not competent.

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

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 21243 OF 2011

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 21243 OF 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: November 16, 2011

Birampal

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. Chander Shekhar Verma, Advocate for Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶16

The limited relief claimed in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of directions to respondent No.2- Haryana State Pollution Control Board to decide the representation made by the petitioner on 18.07.2011 (P-9) alleging violation of various provisions of norms laid down for controlling pollution. The grievance made is that despite the fact that the aforesaid representation is pending for about 4 months but no decision has been taken so far.

¶17

Notice of motion.

¶18

Mr. Narender Hooda, learned Addl. A.G., Haryana who is

¶19

present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Four copies of the paper book have been handed over to him by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

-2-

¶21

CWP No. 21243 OF 2011

¶22

Keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the instant petition, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 18.07.2011 (P-9) made by the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If respondent No.2 is not competent authority then it may ask respondent No.3 to dispose of the representation as per directions issued.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in the above term.

¶24

A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges.

¶25

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶26

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

¶27

November 16, 2011 Atul

Birampal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birampal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jahrudeen & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

HUDA and Anr. Vs Layak Ram

Jamiat Singh Palial Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

HUDA and Anr. Vs M/S Swadeshi Loomtex Pvt. Ltd.