Disposed

M/S Captain Palanisamy Service v. 1.THE Inspector of Factories

Madras HC11 Dec 2017WP/32574/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner challenged show cause notices from Factory Inspectors. The petitioner had submitted a reply claiming exemption; the Court directed the respondents to consider the reply within four weeks before passing a final order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's reply and pass a final order within four weeks.

M/S Captain Palanisamy Service Vs 1.THE Inspector of… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.12.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.No.32574 of 2003 and WPMP.No.39475 of 2003 and WVMP.No.1075 of 2004

¶2

M/s.Captain Palanisamy Service Station, Rep. by its Partner R.V.K.Palanisamy, Door No.323, Omallur Main Road, Salem 636 007.

¶3

...Petitioner

¶4

Vs. 1. The Inspector of Factories, Gokulam Road, Fairlands, Salem 636 016.

¶5

The Asst.Inspector of Factories, No.2, Fairlands, Salem 636 016. ... Respondents

¶6

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent issued in Aa/4668/2003 dated 05.09.2003 and 1^st respondent issue in Na.Ka.No.E/4674/2003 dated 06.10.2003 and quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents: Mr.M.Elumalai, Government Advocate

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent issued in Aa/4668/2003, dated 05.09.2003 and 1^st respondent issue in Na.Ka.No.E/4674/2003, dated 06.10.2003 and quash the same.

¶10

When the case is called today there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Since the writ petition is of the year 2003 and has been pending before this Court for more than fourteen years, I am inclined to dispose the writ petition based on the available materials.

¶11

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the communication dated 05.09.2003 and 06.10.2003. The contents

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

made in the proceedings dated 05.09.2003 reads as follows:-

¶14

18/08/2003 md;W j';fs; bjhHpw;rhiyapy; eilbgw;w Ma;tpd; nghJ fz;lwpag;gl;l j';fsplk; nehpy; tpsf;fg;gl;l FiwghLfs; rl;l kPWjy;fs; kw;Wk; ghh;itapy; fz;l ,t;tYtyf Ma;twpf;if ,d';fs; 1 Kjy; 2 tiyapyhd ,d';fs; bjhlh;ghf Vd; j';fs; kPJ ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;Fj; bjhluf; TlhJ vd;gjw;fhd fhuz';fis ,f;fojk; fpilj;j VG ehl;fSf;Fs; vGj;J :Kyk; mDg;[g[k;go nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ Fwpg;gpl;l fhytiuf;Fs; ck;kplkpUe;J gjpy; VJk; tug;bgwtpy;iybadpy; mspf;fj;jf;f fhuzk; tpsf;fk; Vjk; ck;kplk; ,y;iy vdf;fUjp nkw;bfhz;L mwptpg;g[ Vjkpd;wp ck;kPJ jf;f ePjpkd;w eltof;if bjhlug;gLk;/

¶15

Since the said proceedings dated 05.09.2003 is only a show cause notice seeking reply from the petitioner, the petitioner also in response to the said show cause notice dated 05.09.2003 had given its reply on 10.09.2003. Since the petitioner has already responded to the show cause notice given by the first respondent, it is for the respondents to pass orders after considering the said reply.

¶16

However, the learned Government Advocate submitted that as per the instructions and the averments made in the counter affidavit the petitioner has not replied to the show cause notice, which is impugned herein dated 05.09.2003. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate submitted that unless reply is given decision cannot be made on the issue raised in the impugned show cause notice. Though a copy of the reply dated 10.09.2003 said to have been given by the petitioner annexed in the typed set of papers, the learned Government Advocate submitted that such reply has not been given to the respondents office. For the sake of convenience, the entire reply letter dated 10.09.2003 is extracted hereunder:-

¶17

“ To The Asst.Inspector of Factories, No.2, Fairlands, Salem – 16. Sir, Ref: Your Letter No.4668/03 dated 05.09.2003 This is to inform you that the petrol pumps do not come under the Factories Act, as we do not manufacture or convert or undergo any process within the premises. The Diesel and Petrol are supplied by Indian Oil, Corporation Ltd., (Govt Company) and we sell them in retail for which we have obtained licence and we are assessed to commercial & sales tax under the central & state Govts.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

It is the company which gets the no objection certificate from the concerned department and we are only retail outlet dealers, and we do not come under the perview of the Factories Act.

¶20

If you think it is under the Factories Act you may send notice to the Indian Oil, Corporation Ltd.,

¶21

who only appointed us as retail outlet dealer and the pumps are supplied by them and we do not own any thing.

¶22

Hence it is prayed that the proposed action may be dropped and we may be permitted to run the outlet as we have been doing all these years.

¶23

Thanking You Yours faithfully
Sd/-
For Capt.Palanisamy Service Station
Managing Partner
C.C. to Dy.Inspector Sales
I.O.C. Ltd., Salem
The Secretary,
S.D.P.D.A. Salem “
6. In so far as the further communication which is impugned
herein dated 06.10.2003 is concerned, it is only mentioned
therein that a Registration No: SL 4563 of 2003 has been given
to the petitioner and in future, whatever communication to be
sent by the petitioner, the said registration number has to be
quoted. The said communication cannot be assailed, as nothing is
prejudicial in the said communication issued by the respondent
dated 06.10.2003.

¶24

In view of the above orders, the following direction is issued in this writ petition.

¶25

The respondents shall take into account the reply given by the petitioner on 10.09.2003 which has already been extracted in this order herein above and pass a final order, if no order has already been passed by the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dpq
To
1.The Inspector of Factories
Gokulam Road Fairlands
Salem-636 016
2.The Assistant Inspector of Factories
No.2 Fairlands, Salem 636 016
+1 cc to Mr.M.Jawahar Advocate sr 88495
+1 cc to the Govt Pleader sr 89066
W.P.No.32574 of 2003
and WPMP.No.39475 of 2003
and WVMP.No.1075 of 2004
kk(co)
aa10/01/2018

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S Captain Palanisamy Service v. 1.THE Inspector of Factories

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Captain Palanisamy Service v. 1.THE Inspector of Factories

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs Thiru Manjunath

R.Subbaraya Gounder Vs Chairman, T.N.E.B.,800

G.Marimuthu Vs 1.STATE of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Arulmigu Vedaranyeswarar Vs 1.THE Union of India Rep.by

M/S.Ashok Leyland Ltd., Vs 1.STATE of Tn Rep.by Secy.

Dr.M.Muthukorakkan Vs the Secretary to Government