CWP No.16491 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16491 of 2009 Date of Decision: 24.02.2011 Green Earth through Shri Anoop Yadav ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Ashu Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Parveen Goel, Advocate, for the respondents No.3 and 4. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking the following directions:- i) Issue directions to the respondent No.1 to ensure that environment Education subject to taught by the teachers/lecturers having specialized degree in the subject for providing proper environmental education to the students which is necessary for the protection of the environment. ii) Issue direction to respondent No.2 and to the District Collectors of the respective Districts to direct Cinema Halls touring cinemas and video parlors to exhibit slides/messages on environment in each show undertaken by them and to take action against the cinema halls, touring cinemas and video parlors not complying with the direction No.1 issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 22.11.1991; CWP No.16491 of 2009 [2] iii)Issue direction to respondents No.3 and 4 to televise/boradcast environmental programmes in the regional languages respectively on T.V. and radio in accordance with the direction No. (iii) issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 22.11.1991.” The said directions have been prayed for on the strength of an order dated 22.11.1991 passed by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 860 of 1991 M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India. We have read and considered the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court particularly the directions contained in the said order under (1)(2)(3) and (4). As the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is clear and categorical and directions, as were considered appropriate, have been passed we do not see why the said directions should again be reiterated by us. If the grievance of the petitioner is that the said directions or some of them have not been implemented by any authority, it is always open for the petitioner to seek his appropriate remedies under the law. For the aforesaid reasons we do not consider it necessary to keep this PIL pending any longer. It is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 24.02.2011 'ravinder'