Dismissed

Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Aug 2012CWP/13994/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition alleging effluent discharge by a paper mill by holding it infructuous, as the Punjab Pollution Control Board had taken remedial measures ensuring compliance with prescribed norms and monitoring the industry.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as infructuous; petitioner directed to approach appropriate authority if norms are flouted.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Punjab — Environment and Pollution | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.13994 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision: 14.8.2012

¶4

Court on its own motion

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.

¶10

Present: By Order.

¶11

Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶12

Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for Punjab Pollution Control Board.

¶13

Mr. A.R. Takkar, Advocate for M/s D.S.G. Papers Pvt. Ltd.

¶14

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶15

Civil Misc. No. 10873 of 2012

¶16

Civil Misc. Application is allowed.

¶17

Affidavit of Dr. Babu Ram, Member Secretary, Punjab Pollution

¶18

Control Board, Patiala, is taken on record.

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No. 13994 of 2012

¶20

Short reply, filed today in the Court, by way of affidavit of Karan Avtar Singh, Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Science, Technology, Environment and Non-Conventional Energy, is taken on record.

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No.13994 of 2012 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

This writ petition has been registered on a reference received in the Secretariat of the Chief Justice of this Court. It is stated in the writ petition that the paper mill known as M/s D.S.G. Papers Private Limited, village Bhanari, Tehsil & District Patiala is discharging its untreated effluent in the nearby river.

¶24

On 25.7.2012, notice of motion was issued and the Secretary, Punjab Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) was directed to file an affidavit indicating as to whether the above named paper mill is functioning as per norms and after getting necessary permission from the competent authority.

¶25

Pursuant to the issuance of notice of motion, affidavit of Dr. Babu Ram, Member Secretary of the Board has been filed wherein it is stated that consent to operate the paper mill was granted to the above named industrial unit, however, when the Unit was found violating the norms, its closure was ordered by the Board on 15.5.2012. In fact it was sealed and closed on 17.5.2012. The said industrial unit filed an appeal against the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by the Board. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal, set aside the order dated 15.5.2012 and remanded the case back to the Board on 23.5.2012 for its reconsideration and directed the unit to be present before the Chairman of the Board on 24.5.2012. The site where the industrial unit has been established was visited and inspected on 24.5.2012 and on the basis of inspection report submitted by the visiting Officer, the Chairman of the Board issued the following directions:

¶26

Civil Writ Petition No.13994 of 2012 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

“a) The industry will dismantle completely the pipeline laid for the discharge of its waste water into Patiala Nadi within a period of 2 days positively.

¶29

b) The industry is allowed to restart its operations temporarily for a period of 3 months with immediate effect.

¶30

c) The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Authority be directed to restore the supply of electricity to the industry temporarily for a period of 3 months.”

¶31

Thereafter, the site was again visited on 1.8.2012. The discharge of the effluent was found as per norms. The industrial unit was also directed to treat its effluent efficiently so as to achieve the prescribed standards. It is further stated that the Board shall monitor the performance of effluent treatment plant after one month and thereafter periodically to ensure that it is meeting with the prescribed norms and would keep close vigil on the industry and in case it is found discharging any of the effluent in the river or flouting any of the norms, necessary action shall be taken.

¶32

Since the Board has taken all remedial measures and the Unit at present is meeting the prescribed norms, this writ petition having become infructuous is disposed of as such. The Chairman of the Board is directed to stick to the assurances given in the affidavit mentioned above.

¶33

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice

¶34

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶35

August 14, 2012 “DK”

Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Punjab

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

Jai Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Liyakat and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Narinder Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurmit Kaur Vs Kamlesh Rani

Sanstosh Kumari and Ors. Vs Punjabi Universituy, Patiala and Anr.

Rajeshwar Kumar Vashisht and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others