A writ of mandamus for the closure of a manufacturing unit cannot be granted if the competent authority finds the unit falls under a category (tiny unit) that does not require specific approvals and no statutory violation is proven.

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 to take action against the 8th respondent for closing the manufacturing unit producing cement products in New S.No.11-135A, Door No.13-34B, Methukummal Panchayat, Athencode village, Killiyoor taluk, Kanyakumari district as per the representation of the petitioner dated 13.10.2020.

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 to take action against the 8th respondent for closing the manufacturing unit producing cement products in New S.No.11-135A, Door No.13-34B, Methukummal Panchayat, Athencode village, Killiyoor taluk, Kanyakumari district as per the representation of the petitioner dated 13.10.2020.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as an auto driver and is residing adjacent to the premises where the eighth respondent is running a small-scale manufacturing unit in the name and style of “Raja Sirpi” for making cement products. It is submitted that the eighth respondent is using certain chemical substances in the manufacturing process, which, according to the petitioner, causes harm and inconvenience to the neighbouring residents. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.10.2020 seeking removal of the said unit. Since no order was passed on the said representation, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the Deputy Director of Health Services, by his communication dated 30.11.2020, had observed that the cement manufacturing activity carried on by the eighth respondent by using chemical substances would cause inconvenience and harm to the neighbouring residents. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to consider his representation and take appropriate action against the eighth respondent.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that, during the pendency of the writ petition, an inspection was conducted by the third respondent on 03.06.2024. Upon inspection, it was found that the unit run by the eighth respondent falls under the category of a tiny unit and that no approval from any other authority is required for carrying on the said activity. Therefore, it is submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner is without any basis and the representation made by him is misconceived. Hence, the respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the manufacturing activity carried on by the eighth respondent causes harm and inconvenience to the neighbouring residents on account of the alleged use of chemical substances. However, it is seen from the counter submission that the third respondent had conducted an inspection of the unit on 03.06.2024 and upon such inspection, found that the unit falls within the category of a tiny unit and does not require approval from any other authority. The petitioner has also not placed before this Court any material to establish that the eighth respondent is presently carrying on the activity in violation of any statutory requirement or that the competent authority has failed to discharge its statutory duty. In such circumstances, this Court finds no ground to issue the direction sought for by the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.