IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17173 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : 19.12.2011 Bahadur Singh ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA *** Present : Mr.Babbar Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.S.S.Brar, Advocate, for Mr.Vikram K.Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.4. *** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J 1. The instant petition has been filed in Public Interest Litigation with a prayer for issuance of a direction to respondent No.4 M/s DBT Brick Kiln, Village Parol, Tehsil Majri, District Mohali, to stop operation as the Brick Kiln is operating in violation of the Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies Price and Distribution Control Order, 1998. 2. In reply filed by the Punjab Pollution Control Board-respondent No.2, it is revealed that the complaint has been filed only by the petitioner, who is the resident of the area for the reasons that some litigation is going on between the complainant and the Brick Kiln Owner over a piece of land. A reference to aforesaid litigation has also been made in the Civil Writ Petition No.17173 of 2010(O&M) -2- report, submitted by the Environmental Engineer on 15.03.2010 (Annexure R-5). Even otherwise, respondent No.4 has not violated any provision of law or siting parameters fixed for setting up a brick kiln. The brick kiln was set up in the year 1982 and the siting parameters prevalent at that time were revised in the year 1999. Thereafter, the brick kiln has been complying with the emission norms. The anti pollution control devise has been complied with by installing chimney in 2001, as has been revealed from the reply, filed by respondent No.2. On that basis, consent was granted on 07.03.2001 (Annexure R-4) for a period of 15 years. 3. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there is complete misuse of the public interest litigation jurisdiction by the petitioner as it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the litigation between the father of the petitioner and respondent No.4 is pending. By invoking PIL jurisdiction the petitioner has violated Rule 2 and 7 of Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules 2010 framed by this Court. Therefore no such litigation could have been filed by the petitioner. Moreover, the factum of pendency of litigation has not been disclosed in the writ petition. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-. The amount of cost be deposited with Member Secretary, Punjab Legal Aid Services Authority. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 19, 2011 MAMTA