CWP-14597-2007 (O&M) .. Burning Brain Society Present: vs.

Union of India and others

Mr. Hemant Goswami, petitioner-in-person Mr. Alok Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab with Ms. Vini Mahajan, Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health & Family Welfare, Punjab Mr. Ajay Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh with Mr. Anil Kumar, Home Secretary, U.T., Chandigarh Mr. A.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate for respondent No.6 ..

The State of Haryana has filed the status-report. The Union Territory Administration has deposited the costs, but has not filed the status-report. The State of Punjab has neither deposited the costs nor filed the status-report. The aforesaid is the position in respect of implementation of an order which was passed as far back as 5.11.2012 and despite directions no status-reports have been filed by State of Punjab and U.T. Administration. The concerned Secretary of the U.T. Administration states that the matter has been brought to his notice only recently. If this is the position, then suitable action must be taken against the person who has been negligent in ensuring compliance of the orders.

We impose further costs of `5,000/- for not filing the statusreport even by today and direct the status-report now to be filed by 28th

Chand Parkash 2014.02.07 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14597-2007 (O&M) February, 2014.

-2-

It should be ensured that both the sets of costs are

recovered from the delinquent officers, suitable action taken and separate status-report qua this aspect be also filed within the same period of time including the certificate of recovery. As regards the State of Punjab, the Secretary concerned states that there was some confusion as to which department had to attend to the matter. In our view, this can hardly be an explanation for having taken no action to file the status-report qua a direction of November, 2012, though the Secretary states that there has been substantive compliance. The directions passed qua U.T. Administration would, thus, equally apply to the State of Punjab, apart from the direction to deposit the earlier costs. The petitioner has a caveat even to the report of the Haryana Government as, according to him, the products are being freely sold. We are of the view that in order to have an effective preventive mechanism, there has to be sensitisation of the officers at the ground level and, thus, we call upon the two States and the U.T. Administration to formulate as to how and by what means would they sensitize their officers at the ground level to detect the offending cases and take suitable action. List on 14.03.2014. ( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE

07.02.2014
parkash*

( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE

Chand Parkash 2014.02.07 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document