CWP No. 2902 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2902 of 2011 Date of decision:- 16.02.2011 M/s Mohit Ornamation and Fabrication, 4-B & 5-B, New Model Town, Phagwara, District Kapurthala through its Proprietor – Sh. Satnam Bagga son of Sh. Sadhu Ram, r/o 4- B, New Model Town, Phagwara, District Kapurthala and another. ...... Petitioners Vs State of Punjab and others. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (ORAL) Notice of motion to the respondents. On asking of the Court, Mr. Rupinder Khosla, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1 whereas Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned Counsel for the Punjab Pollution Control Board accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3. In view of the order that is proposed to be passed notice to the respondents No. 4 and 5 is not required at this stage. The challenge herein is against an order dated 02.02.2011 passed by the Senior Environmental Engineer, Punjab Pollution CWP No. 2902 of 2011 2 Control Board directing the Chief Engineer (Operation), Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and its Superintending Engineer at Jalandhar to disconnect the electricity supply to the petitioner unit. The aforesaid directions have been issued under the provisions of Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 following the report dated 19.01.2011 prepared on the basis of a noise monitoring exercise carried out in the premises of the petitioner by the authorities of the Punjab Pollution Control Board. The said report is to the effect that the noise level at the time when the industry is in operation is higher than what has been prescribed under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid monitoring and the consequential report is without any notice to the owners of the petitioner unit who were not present at the time when the monitoring was carried out. Though the petitioner has attempted to establish the absence of any notice by adopting a little circuitous route by referring to certain connected facts, at this stage, we are inclined to accept the position contended by the petitioner i.e. that the monitoring was done without any notice to it and when its representatives/owners were not present. Proceeding on the aforesaid basis, we are of the view that a fresh monitoring should be done by the competent authority of the Punjab Pollution Control Board on or before 23.02.2011. The petitioner who is represented by his Counsel will not be required to be given any separate notice of the said monitoring. However, such notice CWP No. 2902 of 2011 3 shall be given to the complainant, whereafter, the required monitoring will be carried out by the authorities of the Punjab Pollution Control Board on or before the date fixed by the Court. Depending on the outcome of the said monitoring and the report prepared on the basis thereof, further action in the matter, as may be called for in law, will be taken by the Punjab Pollution Control Board. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 16.02.2011 Amodh