SURESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners being residents of 43, Ward No.4, House No.366, Begumpura, Dudhara Street, Surat have filed this Special Civil Application with the allegations that:

(2.) With the allegations as above, the present Special Civil Application was filed on 13th March 2000. The notice was issued on 15th March 2000 and respondents nos.2 and 3 were directed to make site inspection and to make necessary report. In response to the notice issued by this Court, an affidavit-in reply dated 17th April 2000 has been filed by respondent No.7.

(3.) The respondent No.7 through his reply dated 17.4.2000 has sought to traverse the case of the petitioners by denying the allegations levelled by the petitioners and has submitted that the General Body of the Surat Municipal Corporation had passed a Resolution dated 7.5.64 terming the Jhari manufacture and its process as a 'light home workshop', where the work done or machinery installed are such as could be done or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of nuisance. It has been further stated that the Ministry of commerce (Office of the Development Commissioner for Handicrafts), Government of India, New Delhi had issued a Certificate dated 4.10.85 certifying that Jhari and Jhari items are classified as Handicrafts as per Index in Import Trade Control Policy 1976-77 and the classification is accepted for all purposes. It has also been stated in the reply that originally Jhari industry was controlled by Kanabi Patels and their employees used to be Ranas. Slowly over a period of time people from Rana community have opened their workshops and this has given rise to some resentment. It has been stated that the petitioners are Kanabi Patels whereas the respondents belong to Rana community and it is because of this malafide consideration that the petition has been filed. It has been further stated that the petitioners have not prayed for any relief against one Jethabhai Babubhai dhoriwala, who is also running a Jhari Unit in the same street, while petitioner No.1 himself is Dhoriwala. It has also been stated that at the rear of the house of the petitioner No.1 i.e. Vadvali Sheri there are more than 50 Units manufacturing Jhari. Yet no action has been prayed for against them. It has been further stated that there are approximately 5000 Jhari Units in the City of Surat and they are all in the central Surat and they employ between 1,50,000 to 2,00,000 people and their numbers are increasing regularly. It has been stated that the history of Jhari in Surat dates back to pre Moghul days and during Moghul rule and, thereafter, during British rule, this business reached its peak and Surat was actually known as a Jhari City. Jhari is manufactured by humble Artisans like respondents and that Jhari manufactured by them has been a part of apparels used by many beautiful women all over the world. In sum and substance their case is that the manufacture of Jhari is only a "light home workshop" and as per the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India itself Jhari has been classified as Handicraft and the manufacturing process does not offend the health conditions in the area in question and it is not hazardous. However, the petitioners have filed an affidavit in rejoinder dated 23.4.2000 contesting the averments made in the reply.