A plea against complete ban on sale, storage and use of firecrackers in the national capital during Diwali was mentioned for urgent hearing before the Delhi High Court on Friday which said it will see.
The high court had on Thursday listed the petition for further hearing on December 13 as the main counsel for the petitioner was not available.
The advocate however urged the bench to hear it either on Friday itself or Saturday on the grounds that otherwise the plea would become infructuous.
The high court will break for the Diwali vacation from November 1 to 5 and Saturday is the last working day.
A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh asked the counsel to give the case number to the court master and it will see when it has to be listed. You give the case number, we will see.
We are not saying yes or no. We will see at the end of the day, the bench said.
"You give the case number, we will see. We are not saying yes or no. We will see at the end of the day," the bench said.
Advocate Gautam Jha, appearing for the petitioners, said his plea is against the complete ban on sale, storage and use of firecrackers in Delhi during Diwali which is on November 4 and if the matter is not heard before the festival, it will become infructuous.
The high court, on Thursday, had noted that a similar matter relating to ban on manufacturing and sale of firecrackers across the country to curb pollution was also pending before Supreme Court.
The high court was hearing the plea by two individuals, Rahul Sanwariya and Tanveer, who have claimed that Delhi government’s decision of imposing a complete ban was an overreach as the apex court has never ordered an absolute ban on the sale of firecrackers in the national capital.
The petitioners said they were seeking a modification of the September 15 order which imposed a complete ban on the storage, sale and bursting of all kinds of firecrackers during the festival of Diwali on account of pollution concerns.
Instead of an absolute ban, the authorities ought to opt for green crackers or a graded regulation, the counsel had earlier said.
The petitioners have contended that the ban was arbitrary, unreasonable and excessive.
The action of the respondent (Delhi government) must be no more intrusive than is necessary to meet an important public purpose.
No doubt Article 25 of the Indian Constitution is subject to Article 21 and it is not contested by the petitioners, however, it is submitted by the petitioners that the extent of the interference of the respondent by its decision/ order is not proportionate to the ultimate aim and objective, that is, to curb pollution in the NCT of Delhi, the petition said.It claimed that pollution in Delhi was attributable to vehicles, biomass burning etc and the complete ban on firecrackers, one and a half months prior to the festival of Diwali, has hurt the sentiments of millions of people.