CWP No.10508 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10508 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: March 9, 2011 NATHA SINGHA AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. M.S. RAKKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. P.S. BAATH, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITONER. MS. RITA KOHLI, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.4 & 5. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition contains a challenge to a licence purported to have been issued by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 to establish brick kiln. The basis of the challenge by two residents of the village is that in terms of Section 22 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (for short 'the Act'), no brick kiln could be established within the distance of 880 yards from the residential area of the village. The petitioners placed their reliance on the report of the Tehsildar that the suggested location of brick kiln was within the distance of 880 yards. The petitioners have also appended a plan showing the location of the proposed brick kiln which was shown to be within the prohibited distance. 2. Respondent No.3 had filed objection stating that the brick kiln CWP No.10508 of 1989 -2- was proposed to be located beyond 500 metres from the residential area. This reply is neither here not there. The issue is whether there could have been a permission to locate any brick kiln within the distance which is prohibited under the provision referred to above. In the face of interdict against such location, the licence ought not to have been possible at the particular place. 3. The writ petition relates to a purported action of respondent No.3 for a licence issued to respondent No.4 in the year 1976. The relief claimed in the writ petition cannot have any value for, in the nature of things, a licence itself cannot be issued for more than 3 years. Even while disposing of the writ petition as having become infructuous, I clarify that the Panchayat or its functionaries shall not grant any licence to establish a brick kiln within the prohibited distance under Section 22 of the Act. If any such attempt is made, the petitioners or any person aggrieved shall have appropriate remedy to cast an objection and if such objections are placed before respondent No.3, it shall be duly considered and the property shall be measured after due notice to all the parties concerned and an appropriate decision taken in accordance with law. 4. The writ petition is disposed of with the observations made above. March 9, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE