HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2005 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10401 OF 2002. DATE OF DECISION: September 24, 2008. *** Gram Panchayat Village Madhray Vs. State of Punjab and others. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant. *** Present: Shri G.S.Bhatia, Advocate, for the applicants. Respondents No. 4 and 5. Shri Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri A.R.Takkar, Advocate, for the Pollution Board. Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Addl: AG, Punjab. Shri Ramesh K.Sharma, Advocate. Shri G.S.Bajwa, Advocate. *** T.S.Thakur, J (Oral) Civil Writ Petition No. 10401 of 2002 was filed by Gram Panchayat Madhray, for issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against respondents No. 4 and 5 who had set up a brick kiln, and are operating the same without getting any clearance from the Pollution Board concerned. The said petition was finally heard and dispose of by an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on October 31, 2002. In para 6 of the said order, this Court noted that the brick kiln in question has been closed down by the authorities. All the same, the authorities were directed to keep a watch on the activities of respondents No. 4 and 5 to prevent them from re-starting the brick kiln in question. The -2- . 152 OF 2005 Court observed:- “Having heard Mr. S.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab representing Respondent No.1 and 3 and Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate representing Respondent No.2, it is now crystal clear that the laws have been set in motion and that the Brick Kiln in question has also been closed down by the authorities. Consequently, we dispose of this writ petition commanding the authorities to keep a watch on the activities of Respondent No.4 and 5 so that they could not re- operate the Brick-Kiln in question”. The present review petition has been filed by respondents No. 4 and 5, inter alia, seeking recall of the afore-mentioned order primarily on the ground that respondents No. 4 and 5 had not been served properly. When this review application came up before a Bench comprising Mr. Justice S.S.Nijjar, the Acting Chief Justice( as his Lordship then was) and Justice S.S.Saron, the Court recorded a finding based on the report of the process server that service of notices upon respondents No.4 and 5 appeared to have been manipulated and fabricated. A show cause notice was accordingly issued to Parminder Singh, Process Server, Mirza Singh witness and Vijay Kumar, Clerk of court, as to why criminal prosecution and proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against them. The present proceedings have, ever since then, remained pending as Mirza Singh has not been served with the afore- mentioned show cause notice. Learned counsel for the review-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners), today submitted that the Pollution Control Board was not examining the request made by respondents No. 4 and 5 for the grant of permission to start the brick kiln on account of the order passed by this -3- 152 of 2005. Court on October 31, 2002. He urge that the petitioners were entitled to demand an order from the Pollution Control Board against which the petitioners could seek appropriate redress in accordance with law if the same did not grant the requisite permission in their favour. The Board was, however, not responding to the request made by the petitioners and thereby leaving the petitioners without any remedy. Mr. Takkar, appearing for the Pollution Control Board, on the other hand submitted that there was no chance of any permission being given to the petitioners because of several deficiencies that exist in the setting up of brick kiln, one of which is that the brick kiln is within the prohibited distance from the National Highway and the Lal-dora of the Village. He submitted that so long as the brick kiln remained at the present location, there was no room for grant of any permission or consent in favour of the petitioners. He further submitted that the Board had after proper measurement of the distance between the Lal-dora and the brick kiln and the Highway, passed an order declining the consent, against which order, the petitioners had filed an appeal which was allowed and the matter remitted back to the Pollution Control Board. Upon re-consideration of the matter, after remand, the Board has again passed a speaking order on 4.3.2005, declining the consent, inter alia, relying upon the order passed by this Court on October 31, 2002. We have given our careful; consideration to the submissions made at the bar. The Board has as noticed earlier passed an order after the matter was remanded to it and come to the conclusion that the consent demanded by the petitioners could not be granted as the brick kiln is situate within the prohibited distance from the National Highway and the Lal-dora. -4- 152 of 2005 It is true that the Board has also referred to the order passed by this court on October 31, 2002 but that reference has not made any material difference in so far as the factual aspects are concerned. We say so because if after verification of the site conditions, the Board has come to the conclusion that the brick kiln is within the prohibited distance from the Lal-dora and the National Highway, grant of consent would not be justified, even if there was no direction from this court as contained in order dated October 31, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, argued that because of the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioners have lost the option challenging the findings recorded by the Pollution Control Board regarding the distance between Lal-dora and the brick kiln and the brick kiln and the Highway. He submitted that since the order refusing consent was passed as earlier as in the year 2005, this court could come to the rescue of the petitioners and permit them to file an appeal, for otherwise any appeal against the said order would be time barred. Mr. Takkar fairly submitted that if the petitioners have been prevented from filing an appeal against the order passed by the Board on account of the pendency of these proceedings, this court could make it clear that any appeal filed against the said order, shall be treated to have been filed within the limitation period and disposed of on merits. The Board would not urged Mr. Takkar in that case raise any objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal on the ground of limitation. Mr. Bhatia is satisfied if the review petition is disposed of with an appropriate direction as suggested by Mr. Takkar. In that circumstances, therefore, we dispose of this petition -5- 152 of 2005 with the clarification that the order of this court dated October 31, 2002 shall not prevent the petitioners from preferring an appeal before the appropriate authority against the order dated April 04, 2005 by which consent has been declined, and that if any such appeal is filed within one month from the date a copy of this order is made available to the petitioners, the same shall be heard and disposed of on merits. The show cause notices issued in terms of order dated October 26, 2006 shall stand discharged. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Surya Kant) Judge September 24, 2008 Malik