Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for by the petitioners and hence, the relief sought for by the petitioners is granted. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 15.12.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAHWrit Petition Nos.13981, 12808, 12821 & 12822 of 2007 Rayapuram Common Effulent Treatment Plant (P) Ltd.,Rep. by tis Managing Director S.Britto, At No.5, Vinayagapuram Layout, Rayapuram, Tirupur – 641 601.. Petitioner in W.P.No.13981/2007Kallikadu Common EffluentTreatment Plant (P) Ltd.,Rep. by its Director, Mr.K.Krishnasamy,S/o KandasamyS.F.No.158/5, Kallikadu Thottam,K.V.R.nagar, Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604Coimbatore District...Petitioner in W.P.No.12808/2007Arulpuram Common EffluentTreatment Plant (P) Limited, Rep. by its Manager A.V.Senthil Kumar,S/o Veerappa Gounder,S.F.No.133, Kiran Garden, Arulpuram, Tirupur – 641 605Coimbatore District...Petitioner in W.P.No.12821/207 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Murugampalayam Common EffluentTreatment Company (Pvt.) Ltd.,Rep. by tis Director, Mr.B.a.Matheswaran,S/o P.S.Ammaasai,S.F.No.214/1, Erankaattu Thottam, Murugampalayam, Iduvampalayam PostTiruppur – 641 687Coimbatore District...Petitioner in W.P.No.12822/2007Vs.
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.76./100 Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Tirupur, Coimbatore District... Respondents in all W.Ps.The writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear respondents from closing the remaining member units of the petitioner CETP(P) Ltd.,which have paid the fine for the month of January 2007 to March2007 as per the order of this Court made in W.P.No.29791 of 2003dated 22.12.2006 instead of taking action against the defaulted unit separately. For Petitioner in W.P.No.13981/2007: Mr.J.KarunanithiFor Petitioners1 in W.P.Nos. 12808, 12821& 12822/2007: Mr.K.RajaFor Respondents : Mr.Ramanlal for R1 and R2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)All these writ petitions have been brought forth seeking the following relief: "To issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear respondents from closing the remaining member units of the petitioner CETP which have paid the fine for the month of January 2007 to March 2007 as per the order of this Court made in W.P.No.29791 of 2003dated 22.12.2006 instead of taking action against the defaulted unit separately. "2. The affidavits filed in support of the petitions are perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondents.
The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners CETPhave 25, 12, 17 & 67 units respectively, as its members. Toachieve zero discharge system, the petitioners have engaged TWICIand the working was going on for installation of Reverse OsmosisPlant etc. on war footing basis. The Court in W.P.No.29791/2003dated 22.12.2006 issued a direction to the members of CETP to pay penalty at the rate of 6 paise per liter from the month of January2007 to March 2007. As per the said order, the members have paid the fine for the discharged quantity for the month of January 2007to March 2007. While the matter stood thus, there was default committed by some of the units and the respondents are insisting the petitioner CEPT to pay the fine amount for the month of January 2007 to March 2007 for the default units.
Now, it is further stated by the petitioners' side that while there was default made by certain members, they may bedirected to make independent payment and the other members should not suffer for the default committed by certain members. Under such circumstances, it becomes necessary to issue a direction forbearing the respondents from closing the remaining member units of the petitioner CETP.
On 10.4.2007, this Court has passed an interim order wherein it has been clearly observed that it was open for the Boardto take action against the defaulting members including the action of closure.
The matter is pending for the past two years. Onappraisement of the contentions put forth and after looking intoaverment made in the affidavit, the Court is of the considered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opinion that when the default has been committed by few of the members, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to take action against all the members and closing the remaining member units of the petitioner CETP.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for by the petitioners and hence, the relief sought for by the petitioners is granted. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand allowed. However, the above order will not stand in the way of the respondents making collection from the default units. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar.vsiTo1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.76./100 Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.2. The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Tirupur, Coimbatore District.3 ccs to Mr.K. Raja, Advocate, Sr. 69311, 69313, 693141 cc to Mr.J. Karunanithi, Advocate, SR. 693124 ccs to mr.aR. Ramanlaal, Advocate, SR. 69037W.P.Nos.13981, 12808, 12821 & 12822 of 2007RSI (CO)kk 30/12
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.