Gujarat High Court
Langdecha Pareshbhai Mukeshbhai vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary on 26 June, 2013
Author: Anant S.Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
LANGDECHA PARESHBHAI MUKESHBHAI....Petitioner(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY C/SCA/10148/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10148 of 2011 =============================================== LANGDECHA PARESHBHAI MUKESHBHAI....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 2....Respondent(s) =============================================== Appearance: MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR SUDHAKAR B JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN YAGNIK AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3 =========================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 26/06/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner to quash and set aside the order dated 9.6.2011 passed by respondent No.2 Dy. Municipal Commissioner as well as notice issued thereafter on 27.6.2011 by Town Planning Officer, Rajkot, by which, the petitioner is directed to discontinue industrial activity in the residential area earmarked under zoning regulations of Gujarat Development Control Rules and other provisions of Town Planning Act and such activities contrary to provisions of BPMC Act. In addition to above, the petitioner who carries industrial activity also causes noise pollution and it has become a public nuisance.
2. In the above backdrop of facts, it is contended that other persons are allowed to continue industrial activities in the residential area and the petitioner is subjected to discrimination. It is also submitted that action taken by the BPMC under Section 376 A of BPMC Act is not only illegal but license was granted to the petitioner to carry out such industrial activities and, therefore, the very action is illegal. It is submitted that the petitioner has reduced noise pollution and, therefore now he cannot be removed.
3. Learned advocate for the respondent has opposed prayer of the petitioner on the ground that license was issued to the petitioner under Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and it is not in dispute that petitioner carries industrial / commercial activity in residential area. It is submitted by learned advocate for the respondent that action is taken by the competent authority since Section 313 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (for short BPMC Act ) provides for permission to Municipal Commissioner to establish a factory work and no such permission is granted by the Municipal Corporation. Even action is taken under provisions of Section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under the above circumstances, the petition deserves to be rejected.
4. Upon perusal of record of the case, submissions of learned advocates appearing for the parties it is not in dispute that the petitioner carries out his industrial activities in the name of Sitaram Industries in the residential area for which no permission is granted by the competent authority under Section 313 under BPMC and registration is only under Bombay Shops and Establishment Act. By invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks mandamus to permit him to do illegal activities in the residential area detrimental to the residents and causing for public nuisance.
5. In absence of merit, the petition is rejected. Notice discharged. No order as to costs.
(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) SMITA Page 3 of 3