IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6922 of 2009 Date of Decision: 07.05.2009 M/s A.V.Industries ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) Issue notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 6 only. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice for respondents No. 1, 4, 5 and 6. Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. Notice to the remaining respondents is dispensed with in the light of the order that we propose to make. The petition has been heard for final disposal with consent. The petitioner is aggrieved of an order dated 15.05.2006 said to have been passed by respondent No.3 by which he has requested the District Magistrate, Faridkot, respondent No.4 herein, to take appropriate action against the petitioner under the Noise Pollution (Regulations & Control) Rules, 2000 ( for short ' the Rules, 2000). CWP No. 6922 of 2009 [2] The genesis of the action lies in a complaint said to have been filed by respondent No. 8 against the petitioner for noise pollution. According to the complaint, the petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacturing of furniture and has installed a wood cutter which makes noise beyond the permissible limits causing inconvenience to those living or working in the vicinity. On receipt of the said complaint, the Environmental Engineer appears to have inspected the industrial unit and made a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot Annexure P-5 to the petition. The communication requested the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot to take action against the petitioner for violating the provisions of the Rules, 2000. The Deputy Commissioner has in turn forwarded the same to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot for taking action and for stoppage of the noise produced by the industrial unit. Senior Superintendent of Police has pursuant to the above sealed the unit as is evident from the report marked as Annexure P-7 to the petition and sent a report about the action taken to the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved the petitioner unit has filed an application under Rule 8 (2) of the Rules, 2000 before the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot for removal of the seals and for giving permission to carry on its business. The petitioner's case is that the said application has not been disposed of by the District Magistrate so far, hence the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The provisions of Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2000 empowers the Authority making the order under Rule 8 to rescind, modify and alter CWP No. 6922 of 2009 [3] any such order either on its own motion or on the application of any other person aggrieved by such any order. Once, therefore, the aggrieved party had made an application to the District Magistrate seeking modification of the order, the District Magistrate was duty bound to look into the matter and pass an appropriate order on the same in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. In as much as the District Magistrate has not done so despite lapse of nearly six months, he has committed a mistake which needs to be corrected by issuing an appropriate direction to him. In the result, we allow this petition limited to the extent that the District Magistrate shall expeditiously but not later than four weeks from the date a copy of the order is received by him hear and dispose of the application filed by the petitioner by passing an appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the complainant and the petitioner. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be free to seek redress against the order of he District Magistrate in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority, if the need so arises. No costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 07.05.2009 'ravinder'