MS DUA ICE PLANT, THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SHYAM SUNDER DUA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
CWP/27460/2025 · 2025-09-24
Sanjiv Berry
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 101083 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 101083 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 140 CWP-27460-2025 Date of Decision:- 24.09.2025 MS DUA ICE PLANT, THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SHYAM SUNDER DUA ....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Omkar Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G. Haryana, Mr. Pradeep Chahar, Sr. DAG Haryana, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. * * * * SHEEL NAGU, C.J.
(Oral)
1. The challenge in this case is to the sealing report dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P-7), and also to notice of closure dated 30.06.2025, followed by closure order dated 26.08.2025 issued by Haryana State Pollution Control Board (Annexures P-12 and P-14, respectively).
2. The grievance with regard to the sealing report (Annexure P-7) is that it is based on an order passed on 07.08.2025 by the Single Bench of this Court in CRM-M-26074-2025. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a mere perusal of the order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) reveals no such direction for closure of the petitioner-Unit.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further acknowledges that the petitioner-Unit is respondent in CRM-M-26074-2025 and has unsuccessfully assailed the said order dated 07.08.2025. However, it is not SANDAL SHARMA 2025.09.26 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this
order/judgment
CWP-27460-2025 -2-
disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that no further challenge has been made to the dismissal of the application i.e. CRM-34261-2025, which was preferred for recalling the order dated 07.08.2025.
4. Insofar as Annexures P-12 and P-14 are concerned, the same were passed by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, and are appealable under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
5. In view of above, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 24.09.2025 S.Sharma i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No SANDAL SHARMA 2025.09.26 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this
order/judgment