CWP No. 6511 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6511 of 2011 Date of decision:- 18.04.2011 Banarsi Dass Sharma son of Kishan Chand Sharma, r/o village Dehni, P.O. Massewal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, Punjab and another. ...... Petitioners Vs State of Punjab and others. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present: Mr. S.S. Sudan, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (ORAL) Notice of motion to the respondents. On asking of the Court, Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the Punjab Pollution Control Board whereas Mr. S.C. Nagpal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 5 – industry. This PIL has been filed challenging the no objection certificate dated 04.08.2010 granted by the Punjab Pollution Control Board to the respondent No. 5, who, on the basis thereof, has been engaged in manufacture of cement in a plant located at village Pandiyana (Tikri), Near Bagheri, Post Office Khillian, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The essence of the grievance raised in the PIL is that the CWP No. 6511 of 2011 2 laboratory reports of the monitoring of ambient quality in and around the plant of respondent No. 5 had indicated that the standards of permissible emissions are much higher and, therefore, according to the petitioners, the running of the cement plant constitutes a source of environmental hazard and pollution. That apart, the petitioners have also raised the question that the storage of clinker in the manner that has been done by the respondent No. 5, also constitutes a pollution and environmental hazard. On perusal of the contents of the writ petition and the enclosures thereto, we find that the reports of the laboratory on which the petitioners rely are from the United States of America, though an endeavour has been made to correlate the said results to the standards prescribed by the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1982. Upon hearing Mr. Sudan, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Nagpal, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5, we are of the view that, at this stage, this PIL should not be entertained by us. The norms which would be applicable having been laid down by the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1982 and the Punjab Pollution Control Board being the statutory body entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that industrial activity is carried out within the prescribed norms, it is our considered view that the writ petition should be disposed of with the following directions:- CWP No. 6511 of 2011 3 The Punjab Pollution Control Board will carry out a thorough monitoring of the operation of the industry, particularly, with regard to the parameters prescribed by the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1982. The Board will do so on a date that would be most conducive to such monitoring. Thereafter, the samples will be analyzed and a decision shall also be taken on the storage of the clinker in the industrial unit in question. On completion of the said process, the Punjab Pollution Control Board will take such action as may be warranted in law with due intimation to the petitioners. Necessary action in terms of the present order will be completed by the Board within a period of two months from today. Copy of the findings/report of the Board shall also be furnished to the petitioners. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 18.04.2011 Amodh