BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27/11/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.2562 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 S.Rajasekaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality, Aruppukottai - 626 101, Virudhunagar District. 2.S.Ganesan ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.4813/2007/F1 dated 17.12.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to remove the power looms and the machinery forthwith at the premises at Old No.40A-I, New No.136, Karuppannasamy Kovil Road, Velayuthapuram, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Sivaji ^For Respondent No.1... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar Addl. Govt. Pleader For Respondent No.2 ... Mr.V.Perumal :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the first respondent. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 represented, but today no counsel
represents.
2. The epitome of the case of the petitioner as stood exposited from the
affidavit accompanying the writ petition is to the effect that the petitioner’s
neighbour is running unauthorized powerloom, without getting permission from the
first respondent viz., the Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality,
Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District; his petition to the first respondent evoked
no positive response. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that already
notice was sent to the petitioner to stop functioning of the powerloom.
4. In this factual matrix, I would like to highlight that it is the duty
of the Commissioner to see that within his jurisdiction in letter and spirit the
rules and regulations are enforced. It is obvious and axiomatic that powerloom
cannot be allowed to function without getting necessary permission, the reason
is obvious. While permitting such power looms naturally the authority concerned
should impose conditions and that too after taking into account the disturbance
actually, which might be caused to the neighbours, permissions are granted only
after taking into account the location of the intended place, where the
powerloom would be functioning. But in this case, it appears that the
respondents 2 to 4 are operating their powerloom without any permission.
5. Hence, in these circumstances, the following direction is issued:
The first respondent viz., the Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality,
Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District shall do well to see that legally steps are
taken to prevent from operating powerlooms within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above said direction, these writ petitions are disposed of.
No costs.
dp/smn
To
The Commissioner,
Aruppukottai Municipality,
Aruppukottai – 626 101,
Virudhunagar District.