Insufficient evidence of alleged violations does not support a claim for public interest litigation.

R. Mahadevan, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1, 2 and 3 not to permit the respondents 5 and 6 to do any business activities in Door No.2 (Old Ward No.50, New Ward No.52) comprised in T.S.No.557/1 at Srinivasaperumal Kovil Street, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai, a thickly populated area, by considering the representation dated 07.07.2014.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the fifth respondent leased out the property in T.S.No.557/1, to the sixth respondent, who after demolishing the building therein, constructed a new one, for the purpose of a godown to stock steel plates and other metals. The grievance of the petitioner is that if such activities are carried out by the petitioner, then the people in that vicinity would be affected. Since the respondents 5 and 6 are constructing the building in a residential area, there would be noise pollution. Moreover, the respondents 1 to 3 did not grant any permission to the respondents 5 and 6 for construction of such commercial building. The petitioner made a representation to the authorities to prevent the respondents 5 and 6 from constructing the proposed godown, but, the same did not evoke any positive response. Hence, he is before this Court.

3. Heard Mr.R.Alagumani, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3, and Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 and 4.

4. The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking to prevent the respondents 5 and 6 from constructing a new building, which is proposed to be used as a godown to stock the steel plates and metals. The allegation of the petitioner is that if such godown is permitted to be run, then, the residents of that area, would be put to suffer noise pollution. Moreover, it is claimed by the petitioner that the respondents 5 and 6 had not obtained any permission for such construction.

5. Merely based on the allegations levelled by the petitioner, we cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner had made out a case for public interest litigation. The fifth respondent had leased out the said property to the sixth respondent, who, in turn, constructed a new building, after demolishing the old one. Though the petitioner had alleged that the proposed godown is being constructed without obtaining any valid permission, there are no materials available before this Court. If any violation is committed by them, it is for the authorities to look into the issue and take action as per law.

6. We, therefore, find no cause or reason to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition fails.

7. In fine, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. No costs.