Telangana High Court
WP/23165/2005 of G.M. Amaresh, Vs The Inspectof of Factories, on 27 December 2005
SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23165 OF 2005 Between G.M. Amaresh and others …Petitioners And The Inspector of Factories, Kurnool-II, Kunrool and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Mr.K.Rajanna Counsel for
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HONOURABLE SRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 23165 OF 2005
Between
G.M. Amaresh and others …Petitioners
And
The Inspector of Factories, Kurnool-II,
Kunrool and others …Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Mr.K.Rajanna Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP. for Industries and Commerce Counsel for Respondent No.2: GP for Commercial Taxes Counsel for Respondent No.3: S.I.Newton, SC for Municipalities Counsel for Respondent No.4: Mr.S.V.Bhatt DATED 27TH DECEMBER, 2005.
Per R.Subhash Reddy,J.
This is a petition for issuance of a direction to respondents No.1 to 4 to take actionagainst respondents No.5 and 6 for having acted against the interest of thegovernment. The other prayer made in the writ petition is to declare that thepetitioners should not be made liable in respect of the leased premises bearingD.No. 55/V, situated on Venkatapuram Road of Yemmiganur, Kunrool District.
As averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of thepetitioners, that they are the owners of premises bearing D.No.55/V, situated onVenktapuram Road of Yemmiganur, Kurnool District, in which, an oil mill was beingrun, in the name and style of ‘Sri Mahalaxmi Oil Mills’. It is stated, that late father ofthe first petitioner was, owner of the mill, and on his demise, all the petitioners havesucceeded to the property. It is further stated, that the said premises was leased outto the fifth respondent for a period of five years by executing registered lease deedon 04-11-1999. It is the case of the petitioners, that in spite of expiry of lease period,fifth respondent is continuing in possession illegally, and, running the oil mill inviolation of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, and, is not paying propertytaxes to the municipality, and, creating pollution in the area. It is also stated, that forthe violation of provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, a case was registered againstfifth respondent i.e., STC No. 3 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Yemmiganur, and, in that connection, petitioners were forced to pay penaltyof Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner has claimed that the possession of the fifth respondentis unauthorized and despite complaints made to them, respondents No.1 to 4 havenot taken action against the said respondent.
At the stage of admission, respondents have filed counter affidavits. Second respondent, in his counter affidavit, while denying the adverse allegations madeagainst him, has stated, that for violating the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948,he has already initiated action. Fourth respondent has filed separate counteraffidavit, explaining the various measures he has taken to prevent pollution causedby the fifth respondent. Fifth and sixth respondents also filed separate counteraffidavit, stating that they are continuing in the premises in question by virtue oflease granted to them. They have denied various allegations made against them bythe petitioners, with regard to alleged violation of the provisions of the Factories Act,1948, pollution etc. It is further stated, that against the orders passed by the PollutionControl Board, they have already preferred appeal and the same was allowed on11-3-2005.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that therespondents are duty bound to take action against the fifth respondent for violatingthe provisions of the Factories Act and various anti-pollution legislations and as theyhave failed to take action, a mandamus be issued for initiation of proceedingsagainst the fifth respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the allegations made inthe petition regarding violation of the provisions of the Factories Act and otherenactments are absolutely incorrect apart from being vague and, therefore, the writpetition is liable to be dismissed.
Arguments
In our opinion, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for entertainingtheir prayer. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have leased out the premises tothe fifth respondent vide registered lease-deed dated 4-11-1999 and for his eviction Original Suit No.7 of 2005 has been filed in the Courtof Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur. The fifth respondent has also filed Original SuitNo.214 of 2004 with the prayer that the petitioners be restrained from interfering withhis possession. Both the suits are pending before the competent court. In that viewof the matter, we do not find any justification for this Court’s interdiction in the matter.
As regards the pollution caused by the industry of the fifth respondent, it isappropriate to mention that the competent authority has already initiated action against the fifth respondent. Therefore, no relief can be granted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.
R. SUBHASH REDDY,J.
G.S. SINGHVI, CJ.
27[th ]December, 2005.
Msnr / svs