IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.8446 of 2007
Date of decision: 5th November, 2009
M/s Ganesh Ice Factory
... Petitioner
Versus
Cantonment Board, Jalandhar Cantt. and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. J.S. Jardha, Advocate for respondent No.3.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed by M/s Ganesh Ice Factory
through its proprietor, Vijay Kumar Sharma. He seeks quashing of
impugned order (Annexure P-8) dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Chief
Executive Officer, Jalandhar Cantt., whereby license issued to the
petitioner for manufacturing of ice was cancelled on the ground that the
premises of factory in possession of the petitioner cause endanger to the
public at large and is unfit for carrying manufacturing activity in pursuance
of the license. Petitioner was also directed to close the factory.
Notice of motion was issued. Detailed reply has been filed by
the respondents.
Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2,
has drawn my attention to Annexure R/2, issued on 14th February, 2006
and has stated that the Assistant Health Officer of the Cantonment had
inspected the premises, found defects and recommended necessary
measures to be taken by the petitioner firm immediately, so that the factory
comply with the necessary standards and no damage is caused to the
Civil Writ Petition No. 8446 of 2007 2
persons living in the locality. A perusal of Annexure R/2 reveals that seven
days’ time was given to the petitioner to immediately repair the walls and
the floor. Within seven days, he was also to carry fresh electrical wiring of
the entire factory, preferably the wiring was to be concealed. A perusal of
recommendations shows that for an ordinary man, it is difficult to cure the
defects within a short period of seven days. On 21st April, 2006, sanitary
inspection of the factory was carried. Ten days’ time was given to cure the
defects. The periodical inspection reports have been giving time ranging
from seven days to ten days to do the needful, so that the factory is
compliant with the specifications given by the inspecting team.
Mr. R.S. Bajaj has submitted that without affording an
opportunity to show that petitioner has made efforts in right earnest to cure
the defects, the impugned order (Annexure P-8) was passed. Counsel for
the petitioner has further submitted that had he been given due
opportunity, he would have explained to the authorities that he has taken
necessary initiative and the defects pointed out were in the process of
being cured. Mr. Bajaj has further stated that in case now also reasonable
time is given, he will do the needful as per requirements of the
respondents. He further submitted that respondents may carry inspection
after three months and by that time all objections, which have been given
in the inspection reports, will be removed. Learned counsel has further
stated that after three months if any deficiency is pointed out, he will also
act in accordance with the command given by the authorities and shall
make the deficiency good.
Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2,
has stated that conduct of the petitioner is such that no further opportunity
should be granted to the petitioner.
After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that
since petitioner is carrying on the work of ice manufacturing for last more
Civil Writ Petition No. 8446 of 2007 3
than 30 years and his entire livelihood is dependent upon the same and
that he has made investments, it will be in the interest of justice that one
more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to remove the defects and
comply with the requirements of the respondents.
Therefore, present writ petition is disposed of with directions
that petitioner shall take all necessary steps to meet the requirements of
the respondents within three months from today and thereafter, an
inspection will be carried by the respondents and the petitioner will be
pointed out defects, if any, which are required to be removed at his end.
Thereafter, in case petitioner fails to act in accordance with various
directions given by the respondents, they will be at liberty to cancel the
license of the petitioner by affording an opportunity of hearing to him. As a
necessary sequel to the above observations, order (Annexure P-8) is set
aside.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
November 5, 2009
rps