IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 85 of 2001 (M/B) Anand Singh Chauhan S/o Sri Gabar Singh, Liquid Nitrogen Plant, Dhobi Ghat, Bhaktiyana, Sri Nagar Garhwal, District Pauri Garhwal. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board, PICUP Bhawan, Floor III, B Block, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 2. Chairman, U.P. Pollution Control Board, PICUP Bhawan, Floor III, B Block, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 3. Regional Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board, E-115 Nehru Nagar Colony, Haridwar Road, Dehradun. 4. District Magistrate, Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. 5. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri Nagar, District Pauri Garhwal. 6. M/s Seema Stone Crusher, through its Proprietor Akhtar Ali, Dhobi Ghat, Bhaktiyana, Sri Nagar Garhwal, District Pauri Garhwal. …….. Respondents Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 6. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon. M.M. Ghildiyal, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 4 & 5. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 6. 2 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ for the following reliefs: “a. issue a writ, an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take immediate preventive and remedial majors for closure of M/S Seema Stone Crusher Plant through its proprietor Akhtar Ali, Dhobighat, Bhaktiya, Sri Nagar, Pauri Garhwal. b. issue a writ, an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no. 4 to 5 to take immediate action for closure of M/s Seema Stone Crusher Plant in accordance to section 133 CrPC. d. to pass any other and further order as in the circumstances of the case, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. e. to award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner was granted three weeks’ time to file his objection to the application filed on behalf respondent No. 6 vide order dated 17.06.2004 whereby the order dated 28.05.2004 directing closure of the stone crusher run by respondent No. 6 was kept in abeyance. 4. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that objections to the said application could not be filed though a period of about two years has elapsed, as the petitioner is not responding to his correspondence. 5. In this view of the matter, we close the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to make a complaint to Uttaranchal Pollution Control Board in regard to the alleged causing of pollution by the stone crusher run by respondent No. 6 M/s Seema Stone Crusher for appropriate action in accordance with law. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 06.03.2006 06.03.2006 G