Quashed

City Medi Tech Industries v. The Additional Director

Madras HC12 Mar 2021WP/33296/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed the Suryanallur Village Panchayat's order refusing construction time extension due to law and order threats. The Court directed the petitioner to rectify plan deviations before resuming operations and noted the land usage objection for future disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.10.2016 quashed. Petitioner directed to file representation to correct deviations with the 1st Respondent within 30 days.

City Medi Tech Industries Vs The Additional Director — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P. No. 33296 of 2017 and W.M.P.No. 36729 of 2017

¶6

City Medi Tech Industries Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, R.Palanisamy, 5/128, Kooli Palayam, Bangal Thottam, Vavipalayam PO, Perumallur Via, Thiruppur – 641 666. ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Additional Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Salem Division, Salem – 636 007. 2. The President, Suriyanallur Village Panchayat, Dharapuram Taluk, Thiruppur District - 638 706. 3. The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate of Thiruppur, Thiruppur District – 641 604. 4. The Block Development Officer, Kundadam Panchayat Union, Thiruppur District – 638 702. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram, Thiruppur District – 638 657. 6. The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Thiruppur South, Thiruppur – 641 601. 7. A.Kalimuthu, S/o.Arusamy Gounder (R7 Impleaded as per Order of this Court in W.P.No.33296 of 2017 dated 11.01.2018) ... Respondents

¶7

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

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Suryanallur Village Panchayat dated 22.10.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd Respondent to issue order of extension to complete the building which was being built at Survey Field No.1552/2, Suryanallur Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tirupur District, under the due planning permission issued to the petitioner by the 1^st Respondent through its plan approval reference Na.Ka.No.2763/2014 SM3, dated 12.12.2014.

¶9

For Petitioner : Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan for Mr.L.Muralikrishnan For R1, R3 & R5 : Mr.N.Inbanathan For R2 & R4 : Mr.E.Balamurugan Special Government Pleader For R6 : Ms.S.Rita Chandrasekaran For R7 : Mr.C.Prakasam

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The writ petition has been filed for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent vide order dated 22.10.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to issue order of extension to complete the building at Survey Field No.1552/2, Suryanallur Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tirupur District, under the due planning permission issued to the petitioner by the 1^st Respondent through its plan approval dated 12.12.2014 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.2763/2014 SM3.

¶12

By the impugned order, the 2^nd respondent has refused to extend the time for completing the construction in view of threat to law and order situation by the villagers to the Biomedical Plant/Biomedical Waste Treatment Unit, being constructed and installed by the petitioner. The villagers are reportedly aggrieved by the Biomedical Plant/Biomedical Waste Treatment Unit that was being constructed by the petitioner to the approval given by the 2^nd respondent on the ground that the construction of the Biomedical Plant/Biomedical Waste Treatment Unit poses threat to the health of the villagers in the nearby vicinity.

¶13

The 4^th respondent/Block Development Officer has filed additional counter, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner has deviated from the sanctioned plan issued by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning Authority and that the 1^st respondent/Additional Director has also issued a notice to the petitioner and therefore unless a revised technical clearance is issued, extension sought for by the petitioner cannot be considered. It is further submitted by the 4^th respondent/Block

¶14

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

¶15

Development Officer that the petitioner has not submitted/enclosed necessary documents required for grant permission as contemplated in the procedures and the norms. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not furnished certificates from the Pollution Control Board, Inspector of Factories, Health Inspector, District Superintendent of Police and Fire Service and that the petitioner had obtained “No Objection Certificate” from the Fire Service Department on 24.11.2014, which was valid only for a period of one year and thereafter the petitioner has not taken any steps to renew the same.

¶16

I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents.

¶17

If the petitioner has indeed deviated and a notice has been issued by the 1^st respondent/Additional Director, the petitioner is directed to comply with all the requirements and meet out the deviation notice purportedly issued by the 1^st respondent/Additional Director.

¶18

However, the extension for completing the construction cannot be denied by the 2^nd respondent/President of the Suryanallur Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tirupur District merely on the ground that the villagers are agitated and were holding dharna and that there can be law and order situation if construction is allowed. If there is law and order situation, it is for the Law Enforcement Authority and the 3^rd respondent/District Collector particularly to ensure that no untoward incident takes place.

¶19

Therefore, I am inclined to quash the impugned order dated 22.10.2016 of the 2^nd respondent/President of the Suryanallur Village, Tirupur District, while permitting the petitioner to take steps to file appropriate application/representation correct the deviation purportedly pointed by the 1^st respondent/Additional Director.

¶20

After the petitioner complies with all the requirements and the defects pointed out by the 1^st respondent/Additional Director are removed, the petitioner may be permitted to commence the operations subject to compliance of other provisions of law which govern the sitting up of Biomedical Plant/Biomedical Waste Treatment Unit.

¶21

The petitioner is therefore directed to file appropriate application/representation before the 1^st respondent/Additional Director within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the petitioner has already not approached the 1^st respondent/Additional Director.

¶22

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

¶23

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. The objection of the 4^th respondent/Block Development Officer that the land is “Ryotwari Punjai” which is an agricultural land and that the construction has been carried out without obtaining re-classification of the land for industrial purpose may also be considered and disposed in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar
arb
To
1. The Additional Director,
Directorate of Town and Country Planning,
Salem Division, Salem – 636 007.
2. The President,
Suriyanallur Village Panchayat,
Dharapuram Taluk,
Thiruppur District - 638 706.

¶27

The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate of Thiruppur,
Thiruppur District – 641 604.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Kundadam Panchayat Union,
Thiruppur District – 638 702.

¶28

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram, Thiruppur District – 638 657. 6. The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Thiruppur South, Thiruppur – 641 601. +1cc to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate, S.R.No.16199 +1cc to Mr.L.Murali Krishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.16337

¶29

W.P. No. 33296 of 2017 and W.M.P. No. 36729 of 2017 MG(CO) KM(23/04/2021)

¶30

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

City Medi Tech Industries v. The Additional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Medi Tech Industries v. The Additional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Dhavamani Vs the Assistant Executive

Sharad Kumar Vs Assistant Commissioner of

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

Mr.Saathappan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Saraswathi, Vs The Chairman

M/s. Subham Paper (P.) Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity