LexBHAG SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BHAG SINGH AND ORS.
A
-
-.!{
v.
ST A TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
JANUARY 5, 2007
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]
B
Urban Development:
~ \
Master Plan--Plea based on New Master Plan 2000-2021 that
factories/Industries in question fell within residential area and hence c
liable to be closed-Tenability of-Held, not tenable-Old Master Plan
continues to be in force-Since New Master Plan not notified, effect thereof
cannot be considered.
Appellants filed writ petition before High Court alleging that the
D
factories/industries in question were operating in residential areas and
were therefore liable to be closed. High Court dismissed the writ petition.
~
It is contended by the appellants that in terms of the New Master Plan 2000-
2021, the factories in question fall within earmarked residential area.
Respondents contested the allegation on basis of the Old Master Plan
contending that in terms thereof the factories/industries in question were
E
situated in an industrial area.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Since the Master pl:m which forms the foundation of F
the appellants' challenge has not yet been notified, the effect thereof
4,--
cannot be considered at this juncture. When the writ petition was filed
the old Master Plan was in force and continues to be in force. If, as and
when there is any change introduced by any subsequent Master Plan, the
~
effect thereof has to be considered in terms of the Notification of the said
Master Plan. [Para 7) [190-C, D)
G
CIVIL APPELLATE illRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1054 of2005.
':.
~
__,.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.5.2002 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 8199/1994.
187
H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 1 S.C.R.
A
Devendra Kumar Singh, Binay Kumar Jha and Mali Ram Bidsar Advs.
for the Appellants.
Annam D.N. Rao, Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar and Sudhir Nandrajog
Advs.
for the Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ·
c
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Challenge in this appeal is to the order
passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The Writ Petition was filed in the year 1994, taking the stand that
industries by non official residents were operating in residential areas and,
therefore, they were liable to be closed. This. stand was resisted by the
D
respondents on the ground that the factories in question were situated in
Sector 16 which in terms of the Old Master Plan was an industrial area.
Therefore, the grievances of the writ petitioners were without substance.
The High Court asked for report of the Punjab Pollution Control Board (in
short the 'Board'). The Board's report which is re-produced in the order of
E
F
G
H
the High Court reads as follows:
"Lastly the action taken report was filed on 8.4.2002 by the Board
showing that 61 units have complied with the provisions of the Air
(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Out ofremaining 27
units, 16 units have been closed down by the Board under Section
21/31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
8 Units have closed down their units themselves. Remaining 3
number units have not installed Air Pollution control devices.
Thereafter 2 more units have installed Air Pollution Control Devices
and 1 unit has changed its fuel from furnace oil to Liquid Petroleum
Gas (LPG) in which Air Pollution Control Devices is not required.
Hence, all the remaining industrial units have complied with the
provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981.
Submitted for the kind information of the Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court for issue of appropriate order in the case."
J
'
BHAG SINGH v. STA TE [P ASAY AT, J.]
189
3. Taking note of the report, the High Court disposed of the Writ
A
Petition specifically directing that the pollution norms and standards have
to be verified periodically and ifthere was found to be any deviation, action
was to be taken.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that in the new Master Plan 2000-2021 the properties in question fall within
Sector 10 which is earmarked as a residential area. Therefore, the High
Court's judgment is not in order.
5. The stand is resisted by the respondents pointing out that as yet
the new Master Plan has not become oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.