http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1054 of 2005

PETITIONER: Bhag Singh and Ors.                             \005..Appellants

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab and Ors.                                \005.Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/01/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

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.  

       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 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 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 of remaining 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."

          Taking note of the report, the High Court disposed of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Writ Petition specifically directing that the pollution norms  and standards have to be verified periodically and if there was  found to be any deviation,  action was to be taken.  

       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.

               The stand is resisted by the respondents pointing out  that as yet the new Master Plan has not become operative and  has not been notified and, therefore, the grievances of the  appellants are without any basis.

       In this connection, the affidavit filed by the State of  Punjab in compliance of this Court’s order dated 7.2.2005 is  relevant. A few paragraphs of the affidavit need to be noted.

"3. That Master Plan was prepared by this  department which was published in the  Punjab Govt. Gazette vide Notification  No.8/9/84-1HGIV/1079 dated 18.1.1989 for  public suggestions/objections. However the  same was non-statutory.

4. That Mandi Gobindgarh, the city in  question, does not fall under any duly notified  Controlled Area, declared under the provisions  of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled  Areas (Restriction) of Un-regulated  Development Act, 1963, now repealed. Thus  there are no Controlled Area restrictions at  Mandi Gobindgarh, in view of the above legal  position.

10. That the Secretary, Housing and Urban  Development Department of the Govt. of  Punjab in compliance with the orders of  Hon’ble Supreme Court has also convened a  meeting on 31.5.2005 to discuss the issue with  the concerned Departments viz. Department of  Industries and Commerce, Department of  Science and Technology and Environment,  Punjab Pollution Control Board, Chief  Administrator, PUDA, Department of Local  Government, Chief Town Planner, Punjab etc.  to take an overall view of the latest position.  During the course of discussion, it was  unanimously agreed upon that all the  Departments (Punjab Pollution Control Board  in particular) shall be more strict in initiating  penal action against the units violating  environmental laws, not only against those  which are party to the present Special Leave  Petition but against all those who are violating  the Master Plan. This would ensure  compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble High  Court passed in the present case."                   

       Since the Master plan which forms the foundation of the  appellants’ challenge has not yet been notified, the effect  thereof cannot be considered at this juncture.  When the writ  petition was filed the old Master Plan was in force and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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. That being the position, this appeal deserves  dismissal which we direct.  There will be no order as to costs.