Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

They were desirous of somehow ousting the petitioners from the factory premises is the grievance of the petitioners. In these circumstances, there was no necessity for the authorities to have taken note of this complaint and modify or cancel their earlier decision.

56 As a result of the above discussion, it is not necessary to go into any further factual aspects. The attempt made by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to justify the conclusion is on the basis that the building is dilapidated and that some unauthorised construction has been made thereon and, therefore, the renewal of factory permit may be dangerous to the lives of the workers, commuters and residents in the nearby area. However, beyond reiterating those conclusions in the affidavits filed before me, the order does not indicate anything by which it can be concluded that the factory permit was revoked only because of the ruinous condition of the structure/building. If major structural repairs have to be done immediately as is the remark recorded by the 1st respondent, then, wp2177-10.doc the factory permit could have been renewed by imposing condition to this effect. Even now, such a condition can be imposed by the authorities. It was not necessary for them to have revoked the factory permit which was already granted from 2008 till 2012, without referring to any material to support the conclusion that the structure is dilapidated and ruinous. If major structural repairs are necessary according to the report of the Assistant Engineer submitted way back in 2006, then, why the respondent No.1- Corporation has not insisted upon the petitioners carrying out such structural repairs till date, is not clear to me at all. The faint attempt of Mr.Kamdar to justify the final conclusion on the ground that the structure is ruinous cannot be countenanced because the main plank of the order, is absence of no objection certificate/consent of the landlord/owner. In such circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention that the factory permit was not renewed and was revoked also because of ruinous condition of the structure. This is not a stage where a inquiry into the stability of the structure or otherwise can be held. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 can while renewing the factory permit impose a condition to this effect, if wp2177-10.doc independent inspection carried out by them demonstrates that the structure requires major repairs. Nothing prevents the authorities from taking such steps as are permissible in law in the interest of safety of workmen and staff and all those residing withing the vicinity of the factory/building of the respondent Nos.4 to 7.

58 As far as the relief sought vide prayer clause (b) is concerned, it is clarified that once the impugned order is set aside the factory permit issued in favour of the petitioners stands renewed till 31st March 2012, but, it would be open for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to inspect the structure/factory and upon such inspection if it is of the opinion that the structure requires major repairs, then, this order will not prevent them from issuing appropriate directions in that behalf in accordance with law. They can also insist upon the petitioners' complying with the same. Rule made absolute subject to above observations with no order as to costs.