Disposed

Hy. Distillery Yamunanagar v. Central Pollution Control Board and Ors.(Main Disposed of)

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2012CWP/5832/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a distillery seeking to quash a pollution board order restricting effluent discharge. The court directed the petitioner to claim a refund of deposited funds related to unutilized drain construction and set a timeline for the board's response.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to claim refund with the Board; directed Board to decide within three months.

Hy. Distillery Yamunanagar Vs Central… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 5832 of 2003 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 5832 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision:- 17.09.2012

¶5

Haryana Distillery Yamuna Nagar

¶6

...... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Present: Mr. Arjun Partap Atma Ram, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

¶13

Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶14

Mr. Sandeep Virmani, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶15

¶16

JASBIR SINGH, A.C.J. (ORAL)

¶17

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner –

¶18

distillery for quashing an order dated 04.04.2003 (Annexure P10) passed by respondent No. 1 directing the petitioner not to discharge any effluent in the Western Yamuna Canal. This writ petition is pending since from the year 2003.

¶19

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed

¶20

CWP No. 5832 of 2003 (O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

an affidavit attached with C.M. No. 17553 of 2009 stating therein that by adopting modern technology, the unit has become zero discharge industry. If that is so, this petition has become infructuous.

¶23

At the time of hearing, counsel for the petitioner states that an amount of Rs. 82.79 lacs and a bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lacs were got deposited from the petitioner by respondent No. 1 for the purpose of construction of a drain to carry the effluent discharged by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner states that the constructed ditch was never used by the petitioner either for domestic discharge or discharge of bottle waste effluents and as such the petitioner has the right to get the refund of that amount. Above fact has been disputed by counsel for the respondents.

¶24

Be that as it may, the petitioner is directed to take up the matter regarding refund of aforesaid amount with the Pollution Control Board. If any representation is filed in that regard, respondent No. 1, is directed to decide the same within three months from the date of its receipt as per law. Claim of both the parties be looked into at the time of passing any order.

¶25

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands

¶26

disposed of.

¶27

(JASBIR SINGH) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

¶29

17.09.2012 Amodh

Hy. Distillery Yamunanagar v. Central Pollution Control Board and Ors.(Main Disposed of)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hy. Distillery Yamunanagar v. Central Pollution Control Board and Ors.(Main Disposed of)

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

Rajesh Kumar Mittal Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S B M Exports P Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Madan Lal Vohra Vs Union of India and Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Punjab, Haryana & U.T. Chandigarh

Tanvir Hussain Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajinder Singh Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.