Taruni Gandhi v. Union Of India & ORS




    
   


   Date of Decision: 15.11.2018 Taruni Gandhi .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents   !  "  #
$
#


%
  #
    "  #


 
%   Present :

Mr. Sunil Mallan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Addl. Standing Counsel for U.T. Ms. Deepali Puri, Standing Counsel for M.C. Chandigarh. **** $
#


% &'(  The petitioner herein who purports to have approached this Court in public interest, seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the Chandigarh Administration to adhere to and comply with the standards and specifications as laid down in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 read with Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Especially as regards the silence zone falling in and in the vicinity of Chandigarh. When the matter came up for consideration before us yesterday, we required the learned counsel for the Chandigarh Administration to look into the concerns raised in the petition and apprise the Court, particularly as regards permissions granted for organizing Literati82018 at Lake Club, Chandigarh on 17.11.2018 and 18.11.2018. Accordingly, the matter was posted for today.

Ravinder Sharma 2018.11.16 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

 


  )* Resultantly, learned senior standing counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh has produced a copy of the permission accorded by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh dated 13.11.2018 to the organizers for hosting Literati82018, which specifically postulate that the sound system will be used as per the instructions issued by the Environment Department, Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 19.01.2005 as also the public notice issued by the Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee. A copy of the permission, referred to above, is taken on record and has also been handed over to the petitioner. And having examined the same he fairly concedes that nothing substantive survives in this petition, and the same be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. In the wake of the above, we close the proceedings in this petition and the same is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.








 






  





















  
 




 


 !"

Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√ Ravinder Sharma 2018.11.16 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document