Disposed

Pankiraj.G v. The District Collector

Madras HC29 Aug 2023WP(MD)/1638/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition for a mandatory writ under Article 226, the court held that manufacturing operations cannot commence without necessary permissions. Respondents were directed to obtain clear permissions before starting activities; the petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs; respondents directed to obtain necessary permissions before starting manufacturing.

Pankiraj.G Vs The District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1638 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.08.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.1638 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.1482 of 2023

G. Pankiraj

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector Kanyakumari District

¶12

at Nagercoil.

¶13

2.The District Environmental Engineer,

¶14

Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,

¶15

Water Tank Road,

¶16

Nagercoil,

¶17

Kanyakumari District.

¶18

3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,

¶19

District Collector Office,

¶20

Kanyakumari District

¶21

at Nagercoil.

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________

¶23

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶24

W.P(MD)No.1638 of 2023

¶25

4.The Tahsildar

¶26

Killiyoor Taluk, Tholaiyavattam Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶27

5.The Executive Officer Killiyoor Town Panchayat, Tholaiyavattam Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶28

6.M.Dhas

¶29

7.D.K.Sanjai Salaji .. Respondents

¶30

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶31

India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 herein to take action on the petitioner's representation dated 12.01.2023 and consequently forbearing the respondents 6 and 7 from manufacturing any carry bags or any related products in Door No.1/151, 2, 1.ST-21 (Survey No.44/15 A1) of Killiyoor B Village, Killiyoor Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶32

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Bharathan

¶33

For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar - for R1, R3 to R5

¶34

Government Pleader

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶36

W.P(MD)No.1638 of 2023

¶37

Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan - for R2

¶38

Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai - for R6 & R7

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶41

Heard Mr.J.Bharathan, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶42

Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 3 to 5, Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7.

¶43

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, without obtaining consent to establish and to operate from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the respondents 6 and 7 are proceeding to manufacture plastic bags.

¶44

The learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7 submits that the petition is misconceived. The respondents 6 and 7 are not going to manufacture plastic bags. The product is something altogether different. The learned counsel further submits that the respondents 6 and 7 have not started the manufacturing activity and they have applied for necessary permission to the Pollution Control Board.

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶46

W.P(MD)No.1638 of 2023

¶47

As it is submitted that the manufacturing operation has not commenced, we will not dwell into the said aspect.

¶48

However, it is trite that permission from necessary authorities has to be obtained before the manufacturing process commences, the respondents 6 and 7 shall obtain necessary permission before starting any manufacturing operations. It is only after all the permissions are granted, then only the respondents 6 and 7 can operate the manufacturing process. The authorities may decide the application filed by the petitioner for permissions, on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶49

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶50

[S.V.G., C.J.] [C.K., J.] 29.08.2023

¶51

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No RM

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶53

W.P(MD)No.1638 of 2023

¶54

¶55

1.The District Collector Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶56

2.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, Water Tank Road, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶57

3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, District Collector Office, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶58

4.The Tahsildar Killiyoor Taluk, Tholaiyavattam Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶59

5.The Executive Officer Killiyoor Town Panchayat, Tholaiyavattam Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶61

W.P(MD)No.1638 of 2023

¶62

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶63

¶64

W.P(MD)No.1638 of 2023

¶65

29.08.2023

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 6 of 6_

Pankiraj.G v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankiraj.G v. The District Collector

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

V.Chellappan Vs R. Mani

Balasubramanian, Vs T.Selvi, W/O.Tamilmani

Employees State Ins Corpn Vs M/S.Arihant Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.

Murugan.P Vs The District Collector

Shanthi Vs The District Collector

Jeyarani Nirmala Vs the District Collector