IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 23191 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.12.2011 M/s Geeta Stone Crusher ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) The challenge in this Public Interest Litigation is against the notice dated 12.10.2011 (Annexure P-10) issued under Section 31-A and other relevant provisions of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. According to the respondents, the petitioner is in the process of establishing a Stone Crusher Unit in Khasra Nos. 98 and 99 of the panchayat land of village Naurangpur, District Gurgaon without obtaining the consent to establish and operate the same from Pollution Control Board. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that its unit, at the aforesaid location, was established in the year 1984 and the same is running a concern which fulfills all the statutory requirements under the provisions of the Act in question and such other statutes, as may govern the matter. Therefore, according to the learned counsel there is a glaring error in the notice dated 12.10.2011 which describes the unit of the petitioner to be in the process of being established. This is how the petitioner has sought to justify the approach to the Court by means of present writ petition instead of responding to the notice dated 12.10.2011. CWP No. 23191 of 2011 [2] 2. Having considered the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, we are of the view that whether the petitioner is in the process of establishing the unit without conforming to all the requirements of law or whether it is an established unit which fulfills all legal requirements are questions that should be decided by the competent authority pursuant to such reply that may be filed by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 12.10.2011. The above are the primary questions of fact which should be decided by the authorities on the ground level and not by the Writ Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We, therefore, decline to entertain this writ petition. Instead, we deem it appropriate to require the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice dated 12.10.2011 and place all the relevant facts before the primary authority who undoubtedly will decide the matter after taking into account all such relevant facts and circumstances. The decision of the said authority shall be made within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of this order. It is also made clear that, in the event, the petitioner continues to have any further grievance in this regard, it will be open for it to approach this Court once again, if so advised. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 19.12.2011 'ravinder'