Dhruv Chawla v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-PIL-16-2022 (O&M) Date of decision:- 02.02.2022 Dhruv Chawla

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State of Punjab and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

Present:

Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Advocate, Mr. Saumitra Jaiswal, Advocate, Mr. Dhruv Chawla, Advocate, Ms. Fizza Zaidi, Advocate, Ms. Mansi Bachani, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Avinit Avasthi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Himanshu Malik, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No. 2 - UOI.

Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.

(The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual Court) * * * * RAVI SHANKER JHA, C.J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed by the petitioner allegedly in public interest stating that the respondent-authorities as well as the persons who are working in election campaigns are using short-life PVC and chlorinated plastic in banners which is prohibited in view of the advisories issued by the Election Commission of India itself. He, therefore, submits that this Court may take up the matter in this Public Interest Litigation and deal with it.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the petitioner has not approached the Election Commission of India bringing to its notice his grievance inspite of violation of its own orders, if any, and directly approached this Court by filing the present Public Interest Litigation. In such circumstances, we think it proper to permit the petitioner to approach the Election Commission of India by filing representation(s). AMODH SHARMA 2022.02.

CWP-PIL-16-2022 (O&M) Mr.

Namit Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5 - Election Commission of India, submits that in case the petitioner does so, they shall look into the matter in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and, therefore, the authorities would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter accept or reject the same in accordance with law. (RAVI SHANKER JHA) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 02.02.2022 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AMODH SHARMA 2022.02.03 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document