Pal Singh vs A Response Affidavit Has Been ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2715 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                         COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures

                                  CLCON No.211 of 2023
                                  Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Mr. Sakib Husain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with by Mr. J.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State.

The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the judgment and order of this Court dated 13.06.2018, passed in WPPIL No.65 of 2011, Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, because in the village of the petitioner Chanchak Majra, there is a pond. The land of the pond has been encroached by an industrialist, who is a very influential person. He is also letting the discharge of the factory in the remaining part of the pond.

A response affidavit has been filed by the respondents-contemnor alleging that, in fact, there is no encroachment, as such. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Some videos have been filed along with the rejoinder affidavit, which were run in the Court.

On the perusal of the videos, it is clear that there is a lot of smoke/emission coming from the factory.

The Court requested Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board to tell as to whether the smoke/emission meets the standard fixed for the purpose. He would submit that he would get an inspection done on Monday itself.

Let it be so done and a report be submitted to the Court.

The Court requests learned C.S.C. to get the basis of the response affidavit, which alleges that there is no encroachment. Has any survey been done? If so:-

(i) What is the total area of the industry that was owned by it?

(ii) How the property was owned by the industry?

(iii) What are its boundaries?

(iv) How the boundaries have been fixed?

(v) What are the boundaries of the pond adjacent to the factory?

(vi) How the boundaries of the pond have been fixed?

(vii) What is the total area of the pond in the revenue records?

(viii) And, what is the total area of the pond at the spot?

Let a short affidavit be filed on the above points within four weeks from now.

List this matter on 30.11.2023.

Let the name of Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, be also reflected in the cause list.

The petitioner may supply a copy of this petition to Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board.

(Ravindra Maithani J.) 15.09.2023 RV