w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



C.L.I.M. Leather Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd Chennai v/s The Executive Officer (In Charge) Anakaputhur Municipality Chennai


Company & Directors' Information:- R K MANUFACTURING CO LTD [Active] CIN = L27209WB1984PLC037758

Company & Directors' Information:- R K MANUFACTURING CO LTD [Active] CIN = L27209GJ1984PLC098951

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100DL2010PTC198947

Company & Directors' Information:- S I A MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120UP2013PTC057004

Company & Directors' Information:- S K M MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17200DL2011PTC223768

Company & Directors' Information:- S T S MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112TZ2006PTC012940

Company & Directors' Information:- I A LEATHER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19201UP1994PTC016117

Company & Directors' Information:- G K LEATHER COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18209PB1990PTC046639

Company & Directors' Information:- G K LEATHER COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18209TN1990PTC019324

Company & Directors' Information:- CLIM LEATHER MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19116TN2011FTC079218

Company & Directors' Information:- A S P MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB1991PTC051461

Company & Directors' Information:- A K MANUFACTURING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909MN1988PTC003110

Company & Directors' Information:- I T A C (INDIA) MANUFACTURING CO LTD [Dissolved] CIN = L51109WB1982PLC034689

Company & Directors' Information:- J D MANUFACTURING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1996PTC079825

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA LEATHER CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19119TN1948PTC000947

Company & Directors' Information:- A S P MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U36900WB1991PTC005146

Company & Directors' Information:- B R D MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1997PTC085188

Company & Directors' Information:- V. S. LEATHER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19129WB2011PTC169615

Company & Directors' Information:- R J S MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27104DL1997PTC090521

Company & Directors' Information:- B U MANUFACTURING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1982PTC035271

Company & Directors' Information:- M M MANUFACTURING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U26922WB1993PTC059837

Company & Directors' Information:- J. C. MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21099WB2020PTC236821

Company & Directors' Information:- S B MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31506WB1999PTC088567

Company & Directors' Information:- K. V. J. MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29308DL2017PTC320213

Company & Directors' Information:- A T E MANUFACTURING CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U28999GJ1973PTC002296

Company & Directors' Information:- J P MANUFACTURING AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51226WB1982PTC034927

Company & Directors' Information:- D. K. MANUFACTURING (INDIA) LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U37200WB2011PLC170403

Company & Directors' Information:- S M MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300HR1997PTC057824

Company & Directors' Information:- G K MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300PB2012PTC036073

Company & Directors' Information:- P & B MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29254TN2010PTC076696

Company & Directors' Information:- B. V. H. MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999GJ2018FTC100633

Company & Directors' Information:- R A MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36900HR2012PTC047669

Company & Directors' Information:- A. P. LEATHER CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19116DL2011PTC216367

Company & Directors' Information:- A K R MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19200RJ2012PTC041177

Company & Directors' Information:- R S LEATHER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19100DL2012PTC240071

Company & Directors' Information:- C N C MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64204DL2015PTC281449

    Writ Petition No.2697 of 2012

    Decided On, 07 August 2012

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN

    For the Petitioner: K. Chandrasekaran, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. V.M. Velumani, Special Govt. Pleader.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to proceedings of the respondent in Na. Ka. No: 788/2011/T.A. and to quash the orders dated 20.01.2012 (two) passed by the respondent under the provision of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and under the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act.)

1. What is challenged in this writ petition are the two notices dated 20.01.2012 one issued under Sections 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 (M) and 134 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 and another issued under Sections 249, 250 and 313 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. By the said notices, petitioner was directed to stop work in his leather factory and submit a report to the concerned authorities failing which action would be initiated before the appropriate forum under the relevant provisions of the Act. When this writ petition was taken up for hearing on 06.02.2012, this Court granted an order of status quo which has been periodically extended upto 14.03.2012 and thereafter, it has not been extended.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of leather money purse, hand bags, travel bags and suit cases. The process involves purchase of readymade processed leather which is thereafter cut to suitable sizes and stitched into finished products using stitching and related instruments. For the said purpuse, a small scale unit is set up at the leasehold premises at No: 13/23, Mettur Street, Anakaputhur, Chennai – 600 070, as sufficiently skilled man power is available in that area. Petitioner applied for license under Section 249 of the Municipalities Act from the respondent Municipality on 22.08.2011 with requisite details. By its letter dated 30.08.2011 the Municipality called upon the petitioner to submits the building drawing plan, CMDA approval, No Objection letter from the Public Health Officer and No objection letter from the Pollution Control Board and Fire Service department. Petitioner claims that it has obtained factory licence from the Factories Inspection Department vide its order dated 25.10.2011. Petitioner sought for some time by its letter dt. 11.11.2011. The Pollution Control Board, in its letter dated 09.12.2011 stated that as the unit is located in a mixed residential area, it would consider petitioner's request after the Municipality grants license. According to the petitioner, the present impugned notices dated 20.01.2012 directing to "stop work" is issued without regard to the fact that petitioner's application for licence is pending consideration with the Municipality and that there was not prior notice issued by the respondent. Hence, this writ petition.

3. The respondent has filed counter stating that the petitioner is running the leather factory in the address as mentioned in the affidavit, whereas it has failed to get the permission for the same from this respondent office and when it was legally questioned by the authorities he has come forward with such bald and baseless allegations by filing the present writ petition. There were numerous complaints from neighbours and also upon personal inspection conducted by the authorities in the month of July 2011, it was found that the leather factory is run by the petitioner in a large scale by using high tech machineries by utilizing excess HP of electricity which involves human risk and also strictly prohibited in both the residential as well as the mixed residential zone. It was also found that the petitioners' factory is being run without obtaining permission from the respondent office and also by not following the basic norms and therefore, petitioner was asked to stop work and get prior permission from the respondent office before commencing work again. Petitioner submitted its application on 22.08.2011 for permission which was returned through the respondent's letter dated 30.08.2011 prescribing the essential requirements to be complied with and approval to be obtained from various departments within seven days thereof. Petitioner vide its letter dated 05.09.2011 sought for thirty days time which was granted. As there was no response from the petitioner even after expiry of the period of 30 days, the respondent caused a show cause notice dated 01.11.2011. Petitioner once again, vide letter dated 11.11.2011, sought for 45 days time. This was also granted. Even after the expiry of the said period, since the petitioner has not come up with the requisite approval from the various other departments, the respondent caused the final notices dated 20.01.2012 asking the petitioner to stop work. According to the respondent, the allegation of the petitioner that its application is pending for consideration before the Municipality is incorrect as the said application had been returned to the petitioner along with its letter dated 30.08.2011. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. On the above background and pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of leather money purse, hand bags, travel bags and suit cases. The process of manufacture involves purchase of readymade processed leather which is thereafter cut to suitable sizes and stitched into finished products using stitching and related instruments. Petitioner has set up a small scale unit at the leasehold premises at No: 13/23, Mettur Street, Anakaputhur, Chennai – 600 070, by obtaining factory licence from the Factories Inspection Department vide its order dated 25.10.2011. Petitioner applied for license under Section 249 of the Municipalities Act from the respondent Municipality on 22.08.2011 with requisite details. By its letter dated 30.08.2011 the Municipality called upon the petitioner to submits the building drawing plan, CMDA approval, No Objection letter from the Public Health Officer and No objection letter from the Pollution Control Board and Fire Service department. Petitioner sought for some time by its letter dt. 11.11.2011. The Pollution Control Board, in its letter dated 09.12.2011 stated that as the unit is located in a mixed residential area, it would consider petitioner's request after the Municipality grants license. According to the respondent, petitioner's application dated 22.08.2011 was returned through the respondent's letter dated 30.08.2011 prescribing the essential requirements to be complied with and approval to be obtained from various departments within seven days thereof. Petitioner first sought 30 days time and sought for 45 days thereafter. According to the respondent, inspite of grant of such time limits, petitioner was unable to comply with the required details and re-submit his application and therefore, the final notices dated 20.01.2012 asking the petitioner to stop work came to be issued. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a re-course adopted by the respondent cannot be faulted with as the petitioner has not complied with any of the requirements and, therefore, both the notices issued by the respondent under Sections 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 (M) and 134 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 and another issued under Sections 249, 250 and 313 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 are in no way infirm and illegal. The respondent had repeatedly asked the petitioner to obtain permission from all the concerned departments and then run the factory. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with such a course adopted by the respondent in issuing notices to stop work first.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has consistently pleaded that petitioners' application for approval is pending with the Pollution Control Board and other departments for consideration and such pendency cannot be put against the petitioner. He would also submit that there are certain number of employees engaged in the factory for quite some time and that in view of the interim order granted by this Court, the factory is in operation as on date and therefore, petitioner's interest may be protected by this Court.

7. In view of the aforesaid submission and taking into consideration the facts involved in the cas

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to re-submit his application to the respondent Municipality, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after obtaining necessary certificates from the concerned departments and if such an application is made, it is for the respondent to consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merit. It is needless to state that in case of any failure on the part of the petitioner, it is open to the respondent to follow the due procedure and take action against the petitioner in the manner known to law. Considering the hardship and difficulties expressed by the petitioner, till such time the respondent disposes of the petitioner's application, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today ( i.e. 07.08.2012). Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.
O R