Yogesh Kumar v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 28839 of 2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.02.2025 Yogesh Kumar .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE Present :

Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 & 6. Mr. Buta Singh Dholanwal, Advocate for Mr. R.K.Grewal, Advocate, for respondent No.7. ****
    


 CM No. 1859-CWP-2025 Document enclosed with the application is taken on record. Application stands disposed of.

CWP No. 28839 of 2023 (O&M) The grievance of the petitioner in this petition essentially relates to water and air pollution being caused by the paper mill run by respondent No.7.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is resident of the same area and is directly affected by the pollution so caused.

RAVINDER KUMAR 2025.02.04 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-28839-2023 -23.

A perusal of the record reveals that vide letter dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-8), grievance of the petitioner appears to be redressed by the Punjab Pollution Control Board which reveals that the industry in question run by respondent No.7 has upgraded its pollution control arrangements and also obtained consent to operate the paper mill from the concerned Board under the relevant enactments. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the said findings of the Board are far from reality. 5.

This Court is afraid that due to disputed questions of fact involved and the limited writ jurisdiction of this Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also in the backdrop of the constitution of specialized National Green Tribunal and also the remedy of Appellate Forum available under the relevant enactments, this Court declines interference in the matter.

6.

The petitioner is thus relegated to avail the remedy of approaching the Appellate Authority under the relevant enactments against Annexure P-8 or to approach the National Green Tribunal as the case may be.

7.

With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands disposed of without commenting upon the merits of the case. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 04.02.2025 ravinder Whetherspeaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√ RAVINDER KUMAR 2025.02.04 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document