Disposed

Premier Mills Pvt. Ltd., v. the President, 3/14

Madras HC2 Jul 2021WP/14062/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice prohibiting the running of a wind mill. It directed the petitioner to make an application or objection to the Panchayat within four weeks under Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and decided an interim order perspective to remain effective until the final order. No costs awarded. Connected MP closed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of with no costs. The petitioner is directed to file an application or objection to the Panchayat within four weeks.

Premier Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs the President, 3/14 — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.07.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.14062 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶6

Premier Mills Pvt. Ltd. 244 ATD Street, Race Course, Coimbatore-641 018.

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The President,

¶10

3/14, Ganapathipalayam Panchayat, Udumalpet Panchayat Union, Tiruppur District-642 122.

¶11

The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Local Administration Dept.,

¶12

Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1^st respondent in Letter No.22/OO.i.tha/kana/se.mu.na/ka-2/12 dated 15.05.2012 and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Haroon AL Rasheed for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.M.Umashankar for R1 Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan

¶17

Government Advocate for R2

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the first respondent/Panchayat under Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. It is the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent/Panchayat is not empowered under Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act to pass an order prohibiting the running of wind mill in the lands owned by the

¶20

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

¶21

petitioner.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned notice is a show cause notice issued by the first respondent/Panchayat and therefore, he has to make appropriate application before the Panchayat either to get permission to run the windmill or to submit his explanation/objection to the second respondent.

¶23

Mr.M.Uma Shankar, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent would submit that the issue has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court and also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Panchayat also fairly submitted that if any such application is filed, the first respondent will pass orders in accordance with law at the earliest.

¶24

In the view of the submission of both parties, it is for the petitioner to make an application / objection to the first respondent/Panchayat within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be considered by the first respondent/Panchayat in the light of Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four months thereafter. It is made clear that the interim order passed by this Court shall be in force till the final orders are passed by the first respondent/Pancahayat.

¶25

With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

Jvm

¶31

¶32

The President,

¶33

3/14, Ganapathipalayam Panchayat,

¶34

Udumalpet Panchayat Union, Tiruppur District-642 122.

¶35

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

¶36

The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Local Administration Dept.,

¶37

Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶38

+1cc to M/S.M. Uma Shankar, Advocate, S.R.No.31270

¶39

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.31201

¶40

+1cc to M/S.T.S. Gopalan & Co, Advocate, S.R.No.30941

¶41

W.P.No.14062 of 2012

¶42

PMK(CO) PM(22/07/2021)

¶43

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

Premier Mills Pvt. Ltd., v. the President, 3/14

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premier Mills Pvt. Ltd., v. the President, 3/14

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

Viking Textiels Pvt. Ltd. , Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity

Anand Textiels Ht Sc No 250 Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity

Janya Spinners Vs Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution

M.Smithra Vs The Commissioner

K.G.Mahan, Vs Corporation of Chennai

M.Annamalai Vs M.S.Preethi