High CourtsDivision Bench

Sunderpal vs State of Punjab and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 31 March 2011 · Citation: (2011) 03 P&H CK 0680

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ranjan Gogoi, C.J · Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J
CASE NUMBER
C.W.P. No. 1564 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 375 words

Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.—Replies filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 5 are taken on record.

2.

The challenge in the writ petition is against the order dated 5.3.2010 (Annexure P-13) by which the Respondent No. 7, the owner of one M/s A.V. Industries, has been permitted to carry on the industrial activity in the premises in question. The objection filed by the Petitioner in this regard has been dismissed by the aforesaid order dated 5.3.2010.

3.

By order dated 28.1.2011 notice of motion was issued on the following limited questions:

(i)Whether the level of noise emanating from the unit in question after introduction of the remedial measures is in conformity with the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000?

(ii)Whether the unit in question is being run in a residential or an industrial/commercial area?

4.

Pursuant to the notice issued the Punjab Pollution Control Board has filed an affidavit dated 24.3.2011. In para 12 of the affidavit the first issue on which notice was issued by the Court has been answered in the following manner:

The detailed reply to the order has already been mentioned in para No. 5 of preliminary submission, however, the industry was again visited by officer of Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Faridkot on 17.03.2011 and observed that the owner of the industry has closed its workshop from the premises of the industry in question.

5.

From the above it is clear to us that the industrial activity complained in the writ petition has been closed by Respondent No. 7. If that be so, the Court will have no occasion to entertain this writ petition any further.

6.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that though the activity carried on in the premises has been closed the owner thereof (Respondent No. 7) is engaged in some other activity i.e. making of furniture and some amount of noise pollution is being caused on account of the aforesaid new activity. If there is any new activity in the premises in question, which according to the Petitioner is causing noise pollution, it will be open to the Petitioner to approach the Punjab Pollution Control Board for taking necessary remedial measures.

7.

Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.