CWP No. 14910 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14910 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.04.2011 Welfare Association Mohalla Guru Gobind Singh Nagar (Regd.) Behind Sabji Mandi, Hoshiarpur. ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 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. C.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. P.S.Mattewal, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 and 8. Mr. K.K.Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.7. *** **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking appropriate orders/directions from the Court to stop/close the various activities carried on by the respondents No. 6 to 9 within or CWP No. 14910 of 2009 [2] immediately abutting the Sabzi Mandi at Hoshiarpur. According to the petitioner-association, the said respondents are engaged in the activities of fruit ripening plant; mini cold store; ground nut roasting and such other related activities. Contending that the said activities constitute serious pollution and environmental hazards to the residents of the locality represented by the petitioner association, this Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking intervention of the Court. The State of Punjab; Punjab Pollution Control Board as well as the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur have filed their respective replies. Of particular significance would be the reply filed by the Punjab Pollution Control Board which is to the effect that the residents represented by the petitioner-association, are unauthorized residents in the area of the Sabzi Mandi. That apart, according to the Punjab Pollution Control Board, physical verification of the sites have been carried out which indicate that the respondent No. 6 is engaged in the business of cold storage for which No Objection Certificate had been issued to him which is valid upto 29.04.2011. According to the Board, the respondent No. 7 is also engaged in the business of a Mini Cold Storage from which there is no discharge of any effluent or pollutant. Therefore, such activity is exempted from the requirement of obtaining any 'No Objection Certificate'. According to the respondent Board the unit run by the respondent No. 8 has been closed for the last four years. In so far as the respondent No. 9 is concerned, according to the Board, roasting of groundnut is an activity which is exempted from the requirement of obtaining a 'No CWP No. 14910 of 2009 [3] Objection Certificate' by virtue of the Notification enclosed as Annexure R-3/7 to the affidavit filed by the Board. Refuting the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner-association has urged that the cold storage unit run by the respondent No. 6, at times, emits foul odour on account of leakage of ammonia gas which is detrimental to the health of the residents. In so far as the activity carried out by the respondent No. 9 is concerned, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the business of groundnut roasting emits considerable smoke which causes serious health hazard to the residents of the locality. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner-association, interference and appropriate directions from the Court will be justified. In the present proceeding, which is in the nature of a public interest litigation, we are not inclined and it would also not be appropriate for us to go into the question as to whether the persons represented by the PIL-petitioner are authorized or unauthorized residents of the place(s) where they are residing. This is a matter which has to be decided by the competent authority on a issue being raised before it. The Court in its PIL jurisdiction would only be concerned with the claim of the petitioner-association that the activities carried out by the respondents No. 6 to 9 are causing environmental and pollution hazards. In this regard the facts recited would indicate that the primary grievance is with regard to the activities carried out by the respondents No. 6 and 9. If there is any foul odour emanating due to leakage of ammonia gas or emission of CWP No. 14910 of 2009 [4] smoke as a result of groundnut roasting, it is the duty of the Punjab Pollution Control Board to ensure that such consequences do not emanate from the activities carried out by the respondents No. 6 and 9, even if such activities can be understood to be exempted from the requirement of obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from the Punjab Pollution Control Board. The leakage of ammonia gas and emission of smoke, in its very nature, would be occurring from time to time and would not be a chronic or a constant factor so as to be noticed by the Board at the time of inspection of the sites. We, therefore, direct the Punjab Pollution Control Board to look into the aforesaid aspects of the matter and if the same are found to be correct, to take such appropriate steps as would be necessary to prevent the leakage of ammonia gas and emission of smoke from the activities carried out by the respondents No. 6 and 9. A grievance has also been raised on behalf of the petitioner-association that the respondents No. 6 and 7 discharge the over ripe fruits on the public road which remain dumped for days together. That apart, according to the petitioner-association, loading and unloading operations from trucks take place causing serious nuisance to the residents. Learned counsel for the petitioner- association, therefore, has prayed that appropriate directions be also issued by the Court to check and prevent such nuisance. The Court in its PIL jurisdiction cannot offer a solution to such grievances. No Court should pass an order which cannot be effectively implemented by it. A mere direction to the respondents to stop such activities, assuming the same to be existing, would be CWP No. 14910 of 2009 [5] rendering mere lip service which the Court must avoid. If there is any nuisance committed by any act on the part of the respondents, the petitioner-association is not without its remedy. The provisions of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be an effective alternative remedy in this regard. We, therefore, refuse to issue any direction on the above aspects of the grievances raised by the petitioner-association but leave it open to the petitioner-association to avail of its remedies under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PIL, consequently, shall stands disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 20.04.2011 'ravinder'