Disposed

Harinder Singh Sidhu v. Ut of Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2011CWP/6705/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patiala Chamber Bench disposed of a 20-year-old PIL regarding industrial waste polluting villages in Chandigarh. Due to the administrative transformation since filing and the respondent's failure to file a written statement, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. It decided the matter with liberty for any conscious person to approach the Court on

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the writ petition with liberty for any conscious person to approach the Court on the same or connected issues.

Harinder Singh Sidhu Vs Ut of Chandigarh — Environment and Pollution | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.6705 of 1990 Date of Decision : April 20, 2011.

Harinder Singh Sidhu

..... Petitioner

versus

Chandigarh Administration and another

¶7

..... Respondent

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

¶10

Present : None for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for the U.T. Administration, Chandigarh.

¶11

-.-

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (Oral)

¶16

This public interest litigation was filed in the year 1990 raising the issue that the toxic and industrial waste is destroying the agricultural land in villages Hallo Majra and Makhan Majra. The aforesaid toxic and industrial waste, according to the petitioner, was being discharged from the industries situated in Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.

¶17

Though the writ petition has remained pending for over 20 years, the U.T. Administration, Chandigarh has not filed its written statement in the matter.

¶18

C.W.P.No .6705 of 1990 2

¶19

Be that as it may, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that during the last two decades, remarkable transformation by way of urbanisation has taken place in the areas under the two villages. That apart, various anti-pollution measures have been adopted from time to time which perhaps is an explanation for the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner from the proceedings in the Court today. In such a situation, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present writ petition pending. We accordingly dispose of the same but with the liberty that any conscious person may approach this Court on the same or connected issue, in the event any such issue arises for consideration.

¶20

(RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

April 20, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Harinder Singh Sidhu v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harinder Singh Sidhu v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bahadur Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Haryana

Narinder Singh & Another Vs Manohar Singh and Others

Kartara Vs Phul Patti etc.

Santosh Rani and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.