BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22/09/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU WRIT PETITION No.4816 of 2008 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1& 2 of 2008 G.Balaiah Naidu .... Petitioner Vs 1.The Executive Officer Selection Grade Town Panchayat Vathirayiruppu Virudhunagar District. 2.The Joint Director Health Services, Sivakasi 3.Mr.A.Venkatachalam .... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to strictly implement the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.290/2008 dated 03.04.2008 and consequently directing the third respondent to close down the Oil Crushing Factory run in Ward No.9, Sedakudi Street, (Mudukku Street), Vathirayiruppu Town Panchayat, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy ^For R:3 ... Mr.Ajmal khan For R.1&2 ... Mr.M.Rajarajan :ORDER
Heard both sides and perused the records
2. The writ petitioner is seeking for a direction to the first and
second respondents to implement the order dated 03.04.2008 and consequently,
direct the third respondent to close down the oil grinding unit run by him in
ward No.9, Sedakudi Street (Mudukku Street) Vathirayppu, Srivilliputhur Taluk.
3. The writ petition was admitted on 29.05.2008 and an interim
injunction was granted on 04.06.2008. Earlier, this Court, by an order dated
29.05.2008, called for a report from the first and second respondents. In that
report, a reference was made to the Panchayat Union resolution dated 22.05.2008,
by which the third respondent was permitted to run the unit. It was thereafter a
vacate stay application was filled in M.P.2 of 2008. When that petition came up
for hearing, the main writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal with
the consent of parties.
4. On behalf of the first respondent, a counter affidavit dated
04.07.2008 was filed. The third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit
dated 24.07.2008.
5. It was stated by the petitioner that he was a resident in the same
village and the properties was purchased by him on 20.01.1969. The third
respondent has been running the business of oil crusher over 20 years.
Originally, it was a stone crusher and thereafter, it was electrified with an
higher H.P. motor. The noise emanating from the unit was unbearable. The
building also vibrates due to the same. i.e.using of 10 H.P.motor. Even though,
the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat had warned the third respondent, he
was not bothering about the same.
6. On behalf of the third respondent, it was stated that he is carrying
on the business as a small scale unit from 14.11.1981 and has got a permanent
Registration Certificate. Except the petitioner, no other persons had made any
complaints. The second respondent, Joint Director of Health Service directed the
closure of the Unit on 03.04.2008 on the ground that he was not having a valid
licence from the competent authority under the Public Health Act,1939. (for
short ‘P.H.Act’)
7. While the matter stood thus, the third respondent approached the
second respondent and sought for a licence in the said place for running oil
griding unit since he installed certain mechanism for controlling the vibration
and noise. Thereafter, the first respondent by proceedings dated 11.04.2008
recommended issuance of a licence. The second respondent also accorded
permission vide letter dated 12.05.2008, by which, the third respondent was
permitted to install two motors. i.e. one with 2.0 H.P. and other with 7.5 H.P.
The Panchayat also passed a resolution on 02.05.2008 in this regard. Thus, the
petitioner has been granted a licence by the Panchayat on 23.05.2008 for running
oil grinding unit and it is also stated that the third respondent has been
running the said unit without any complaint.
8. The first respondent in his counter affidavit stated that the third
respondent is having proper licence for running the unit and there is no
violation of the provisions of the P.H.Act. In the typed set filed along with
the counter affidavit, the third respondent, has also enclosed all the orders
passed by the authorities in this regard.
9. Though a reply affidavit has been filed, the fact that the third
respondent is having proper licence is not denied by the petitioner. When once
under the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 a person is having licence, this
Court cannot interfere with such an order. The Act itself has got inbuilt
provisions for questioning the licence given under the Act.
10. In the light of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
is misconceived and accordingly will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected M.Ps are closed.
ssm
To
1.The Executive Officer
Selection Grade Town Panchayat
Vathirayiruppu
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Joint Director
Health Services,
Sivakasi.