CWP No.13699 of 2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13699 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision.19.08.2014 Verinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Sethi, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed on 18.07.2014 directing the sealing of the premises of the petitioner that was said to have been a LPG gas godown. The petitioner's contention was that he had been issued with a letter of intent on 20.03.2014 and the property had been made ready for allotment after securing concurrence from all the statutory authorities. The petitioner would place on record the concurrence of the Gram Panchayat, Sanghol, the approval from the petroleum and explosion safety organization and the approval from the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives and a licence from the Chief Controller, Explosives to store gas and cylinders at the place under the control of the petitioner. There were also inspections and approvals from the Assistant Divisional Fire Officer and proof that the place had Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.08.21 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13699 of 2014 (O&M) -2- been duly insured against fire theft etc. under LPG Dealer Package Policy. The writ petition came to be filed when the property had been sealed on 11.07.2014 which, according to the petitioner, was without any order or notice prior to the precipitate action of sealing the premises. The petitioner would state that the Deputy Commissioner had issued a letter of communication to the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 10.07.2014 that read as follows:- “Regarding above mentioned subject, it is to inform you that the distance of godown of gas cylinder from the petrol pump is about 185 feet and storage capacity of Virdi Vitran Kander VPO Sanghol is 5000 kgs. This distance of agency should be near about 500 yard from any petrol pump. There should be no petrol pump within 500 yard from gas agency. Regarding which reports from the concerned departments are asked. You are, therefore, directed to seal the gas godown till the reports are received from the concerned departments and administration taken a decision to avoid any untoward incident.”. 2. The action of the Magistrate was, therefore, principally on the ground that there was a petrol pump situate to 185 feet and the distance of agency should be at least more than 500 yards from the petrol pump. He was, therefore, directing sealing of the premises till reports were received from the concerned departments and administrative action was taken to avoid any untoward incident.
3. Even before I proceeded to dictate the order at length, the counsel for the respondents states that the order impugned would be withdrawn and they will take independent action for alleged violations of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Having regard to the submission made that the impugned order is being withdrawn, I find that the relief sought for quashing of the impugned order has become infructuous. Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.08.21 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13699 of 2014 (O&M) -3- 4. There are, however, certain events which have taken place subsequent to the filing of the petition which are brought through documents one of which is an alleged notice received by the Deputy Commissioner from the Director of Archaeological Survey that the godown was illegal since the construction has been made at a place which was 109 yards from a protected monument and that it was a regulated area where no construction could be made without appropriate concurrence. It appears that after filing of the petition, petitioner himself has moved the authorities under the Archeological Survey Act for appropriate sanctions. The outcome of the actions of other authorities is a matter which I am not going to deal with suffice it to observe that the order sealing the premises is no longer in existence and the petitioner is entitled to have the seal removed by such act as it is necessary for accomplishing the unsealing of the premises.
5. The writ petition is disposed of with above observations. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 19, 2014 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.08.21 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh