Disposed

K.Rajeswari v. the Tamil Nadu Pollution

Madras HC5 Oct 2023WP(MD)/3073/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought removal of a bronze industry owned by the fourth respondent located in a prohibited area and adjacent to her residence. The court, noting a delay in action, directed the Pollution Control Board and the Municipality to conduct a field inspection within twelve weeks to identify violations.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to conduct a field inspection and initiate appropriate actions under relevant statutes within twelve weeks.

K.Rajeswari Vs the Tamil Nadu Pollution — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.3073 of 2008

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.3073 of 2008 and

¶7

M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008

K.Rajeswari

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Tamkl Nadu Pollution Control Board rep.by its Member Secretary 76, Mount Salai, Guindy

¶12

Chennai-9

¶13

2.The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board rep.by its District Pollution Control Engineer SIDCO Industrial Estate

¶14

Kappallur, Madurai-8

¶15

3.The Commissioner Karaikudi Municipality Karaikudi, Sivagangai District

¶16

4.Meenakshi

¶17

Proprietress

¶18

Lana Works near Income Tax Office Karaikudi, Sivagangai District ... Respondents

¶19

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD) No.3073 of 2008

¶22

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to give effect to the instructions of the second respondent for removing the industry of the fourth respondent at No.30, Income Tax Office Road, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District forthwith.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham For Respondents : Ms.Vijayakumari Natarajan Standing Counsel for R1 & R2 R3 – Dismissed for Default No appearance for R4

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

¶26

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the third respondent to give effect to the instructions of the second respondent for removing the industry of the fourth respondent at No.30, Income Tax Office Road, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District, forthwith.

¶27

2. The petitioner states that she is a permanent resident of No.9A,

¶28

South Lane-II, Sekkalai, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. The fourth respondent is running a bronze industry under the name and style of Lena

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.3073 of 2008

¶32

Works having the workshop in the backside of the petitioner's residential premises. Since the permission was granted to the fourth respondent to run the industry within the prohibited area, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents and the second respondent has issued instructions to the third respondent in this regard.

¶33

3. On account of efflux of time, we direct the respondents 1 & 2 to conduct a field inspection and initiate all appropriate actions under the provisions of the relevant statutes and the Rules in force, if any violation is identified. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

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

¶35

[S.M.S., J.] [V.L.N., J.] 05.10.2023

¶36

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶37

krk

¶38

_____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.3073 of 2008

¶41

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶42

krk

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.3073 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008

¶44

05.10.2023

¶45

_____________ Page 4 of 4_

¶46

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

K.Rajeswari v. the Tamil Nadu Pollution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rajeswari v. the Tamil Nadu Pollution

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

N. Mariappan Vs the Director

Kumar Na.K Vs The General Manager

Manjula. S Vs The Authorized Officer

M.Natarajan, Vs the Assistant Executive

K.Mani Vs Registrar General

T. Rengaraju Vs the Thasildar