Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2683 (MAD)

M. Jeyaprakas v. District Collector Madurai

2012-06-27

B.RAJENDRAN, R.BANUMATHI

body2012
Judgment :- B.RAJENDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner has come forward with this Petition praying to direct the first and second respondents to seal and close down the 9th respondent's saw mill installed in the premises of 7th respondent and further directing the 4th and 5th respondents to disconnect the electricity connection of the 9th respondent's saw mill fraudulently got connected from the 8th respondent's residential electricity connection and further directing the 1st to 6th respondents to take appropriate action against the 7th, 8th and 9th respondents based on the 6th respondent's proceedings in No.L/5238/11 dated 04.01.2012 and also based on the petitioner representation dated 11.01.2012 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble court. 2. The petitioner has filed this public interest litigation contending that he has been residing in the premises and using for the past 70 years along with the family members and he is a President of the Welfare Association of the said area. 3. According to him, earlier he made a representation resisting the attempt of the seventh respondent to establish unlicensed saw mill and since, his representation was not considered, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 6615 of 2011 and this Hon'ble Court, by an order, dated 21.06.2011, directed the authorities to consider his representation, but even though it was considered, in the mean while, since unapproved saw mill started functioning from 25.07.2011, he made a representation to the sixth respondent and subsequently, the sixth respondent passed an order on 04.01.2002 and directed the 7th respondent to obtain proper permission from the Madurai Corporation. 4. According to the petitioner, the saw mill is still running and the electricity service connection obtained for residential purpose is being unauthorisedly used for commercial purpose and the noise level of the saw mill is quite high and there is lot of noise pollution unbearable in that area and his representation to take necessary action against the respondents 7 to 9 has resulted in vain. The authorities having not taken the necessary action as contemplated under law, he has come forward with the present Writ of Mandamus to seal and close down the saw mill. 5. The second respondent / Corporation Commissioner has filed a counter affidavit. The authorities having not taken the necessary action as contemplated under law, he has come forward with the present Writ of Mandamus to seal and close down the saw mill. 5. The second respondent / Corporation Commissioner has filed a counter affidavit. They would contend that the original area itself was called as "Marakadai Area" and there are 100 Timber Marts in the localities and at present, there are only 22 Timber Marts. They would also contend that he has been paying Dangerous and Offensive Trade) Licence fees to the Madurai Corporation and the Corporation received a complaint from the writ petitioner only in the moth of January 2012. His complaint has been forwarded to the concerned Ward Sanitary Inspector for remarks on 07.02.2012. Before anything could be proceeded further, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 6. The third respondent has also filed a counter to that effect that the authorities, on the complaint, inspected the area on 22.09.2011 and found that the noise levels were in excess of the standards prescribed for the residential area and they have also given necessary instructions to provide noise pollution control measures to mitigate the noise level. Again, as per the direction by the District Forest Officer, Madurai, a survey was conducted on 24.01.2012 and the report was forwarded to the authorities concerned on 19.03.2012 observing that the noise levels were in excess. They have also issued a show cause notice by the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Madurai, on 12.06.2012. 7. The respondents 7, 8 and 9, who are conducting business, have also filed a detailed counter affidavit. They would mainly contend that the petitioner is not a public interest litigant. The petitioner is not a ordinary resident adjacent to the unit run by the 8th respondent. Even as per the ration card produced by him, he is residing far away from the unit in question and his son, viz., J.Suresh, who was also living away, has recently occupied only in the year 2011 and another son has come into the locality only in October 2010. Therefore, his locus at this stage and the need or necessity is questioned by the respondents. 8. As far as the business is concerned, they would only contend that the business is running there for the last more than 30 years. Therefore, his locus at this stage and the need or necessity is questioned by the respondents. 8. As far as the business is concerned, they would only contend that the business is running there for the last more than 30 years. In fact they had applied for the sales tax registration even in the year 1984. They had purchased this business which was running prior to more than 20 years and the business premises is run in their own premises. It is not a saw mill and it is re-sawing timber unit. Even as per the proceedings of the sixth respondent, dated 04.01.2012, it is made clear that it is a secondary unit of re-sawing timbers with small vertical board saw / circular band and the premises, bearing Door Nos. 13, 14 and 15, is in a commercial area comprising more than 40 wood and timber based shops for more than 30 years. In fact, the name of the street itself is in "Moonkilkadai Veethi". They would also contend that the ninth respondent is only a labourer in the re-sawing mill and the eighth respondent, who is running the re-sawing mill, has got permission from the second respondent, for running the secondary unit. He has also got Dangerous and offensive trade license from the second respondent, on 11.08.2011 for the period 2011-2012 and was renewed on 05.03.2012 for the period 2012-2013 under Section 14 of the Tamilnadu Regulation of wood based Industries Rules 2010, even the department do not have any objection for running the same. They have also obtained two electricity service connections one for three phase and one for single phase and therefore, no residence connection has been utilised and the petitioner has not chosen to object to the steps that in the very same area, viz., "Vasanthi Wood Works" and "Parimala Iliapagam", which are functioning as saw mill and re-saw mill, have not been objected by the petitioner and this is only interested litigation. He is a person only set up by somebody and the sixth respondent has already taken necessary steps to minimise the noise levels. He is a person only set up by somebody and the sixth respondent has already taken necessary steps to minimise the noise levels. Even the noise levels are not very high as the permitted level is 55 even without the operation because of the congested area, the noise level is 58 as per the representation of the Pollution Control Board and in sometimes, after operation, it goes only upto 62, which is not of severe consequences, which is also being tried to be reduced by the respondents. Hence, they would only contend that this is not only a shop and many number of shops and this Writ Petition is filed only to harass the respondents. 9. Heard all the parties. By mutual consent of both sides, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 10. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is residing in that locality adjacent to the shop run by the eighth respondent and when the mill which he contents as a saw mill, is running, there is a huge noise pollution and thereby his rights are affected that the authorities in spite of his various representations have not taken any action to seal the premises. Hence, he has come forward with this Writ Petition. 11. At the outset, the objection of the eighth respondent is that he is not a resident on that area. Even from the ration card produced by the petitioner himself in the application, it is very clear that he is not residing in that area and he is also moved only in the year 2011. 12. The main contention of the petitioner is that the saw mill itself was attempted to be started in the year 2011, which is definitely not correct, because from the typed set of papers, we are able to see that the eighth respondent firm has got a registration with the sales tax in the same address way back in the year 1984-1985. They have paid the earlier license fees for the Corporation in the year 1992 - 1993. They have also paid the sales tax for the year 1987-1988. Therefore, it is clinchingly proved that the averments in so far as regards the shops are concerned, the shops itself are being tried to be open in the year 2011 cannot be accepted. 13. They have also paid the sales tax for the year 1987-1988. Therefore, it is clinchingly proved that the averments in so far as regards the shops are concerned, the shops itself are being tried to be open in the year 2011 cannot be accepted. 13. Further, the Corporation has filed counter, in which, the Corporation has categorically stated that the entire area was infested that originally many saw mill upto 100 in number and presently there are more than 225 mills. They also would clarify that there are not saw mill and that is re-sawing mills. The photos is also produced and it is seen from the photos that it is not the saw mill and it is also shops like bamboos and other materials are being stored and sold. It is a row of shops. The entire area itself is called "Marakadai Area" and under those circumstances, the petitioner's plea now as if it is started now and it is hampering his resident cannot be accepted. The petitioner has also not made clear, how he is interested in the public welfare, whereas contrary, he is only filed Writ Petition after Writ Petition challenging the conduct of the business in spire of the fact that there are many others shops and even bigger shops, which has not been mentioned in the affidavit. 14. Be that as it may, when we analyse the complaint, namely, the sound pollution, no doubt, the third respondent, pollution control have inspected and also given a report stating that the noise level is high. The permitted noise level is 55, whereas even before the operation of the machines in certain places, it is upto 58. But after the machines are being operated, it goes upto 61 and 62. In the connection, the Pollution Control Board has already issued necessary notice to the respondents to reduce the noise pollution level. So when the pollution control is already seized of the matter and taken necessary action, the petitioner could not have any grievance at this point of time. The Writ Petition has only filed by the petitioner for reasons best known to him as the contents in the affidavit does not confirm to the actual scenario when the shops are situated more in a commercial street. 15. The Writ Petition has only filed by the petitioner for reasons best known to him as the contents in the affidavit does not confirm to the actual scenario when the shops are situated more in a commercial street. 15. In fact we have seen from the report of the Pollution Control, the machines used in the premises are only containing 2 HP and 1 HP and in fact, one of the machine is used only single phase and only, there are three machines, as already the Pollution Control Board has issued the show cause notice, dated 05.06.2012. We find no reason at all for granting an order of Mandamus as sought for by the petitioner to seal the premises at this point of time. The parties are taking the necessary steps to reduce the noise level. but this being a commercial area, the Court has taken into consideration and the long number of years the business which has been run in that particular area, is not entertaining this Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.