ABHILASH TEXTILE Vs. RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is there any right to carry on business or trade in unregulated manner and cause nuisance to the public and also become a health hazard to the society at large ? If no can the petitioners claim any right to be heard before they are asked to discontinue or prevent the nuisance ? This in substance is the question which needs to be examined in this group of petitions. In these four petitions in all 165 petitioners who are conducting the business of dyeing and printing works at different places in the City of Rajkot challenge the notice issued by the respondent-Municipal Commissioner which is produced at annexure-A to the petitions. The notice is issued under sec. 376-A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 In this notice it is stated that at the place mentioned therein the petitioners are discharging dirty water from the factory on public road/public drainage without purifying the same thereby causing damage to the public health. Moreover it is stated that on 11/11/1986 when the place was visited by the Commi- ssioner himself it was found that by discharging dirty water nuisance was being created. Hence each petitioner has been called upon to prevent the discharge of dirty water without the same being purified within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice and they are also directed to inform the Commissioner regarding compliance. It is further stated that if there is failure to comply with the notice under the powers conferred upon the Municipal Commissioner he shall have to take steps to close the factory with a view to prevent the illegal discharge of dirty water.

(2.) The petitioners contended that they are carrying on the business for last about 20 to 25 years and the industry is providing employment to twenty to thirty thousand families; the proposed action as stated in the notice will have harsh consequences and the petitioners may have to close down their business. Having regard to the very harsh consequence it is submitted that before issuing the notice the respondent-Municipal Commissioner ought to have afforded an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another AIR 1978 SC 597. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following observations of the Supreme Court occurring in para 32 of the judgment:

(3.) The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court will be available to the petitioners only if the petitioners can show that they have a right to carry on the business even in the manner so as to cause nuisance and if the carrying on of the business in the same manner is a health- hazard to the public at large they have unfettered and unregulated right to carry on this business. In the aforesaid paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court the underlined part of the sentence which affects the rights of that individual is very important. Before the aforesaid principle laid down by the Supreme Court is made applicable one has to establish his right to carry on business in the manner which is objected to by the respondent-Municipal Commissioner.