LAKSHMI RICE MILLS Vs. CHIEF INSPECTOR OF BOILERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition and Writ Miscellaneous Petition coming on for orders as to admission and for orders on this day upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof and the Counter affidavit filed therein and the Writ Miscellaneous Petition and the orders of this Court dated 17-6-1992, 1-7-92 and 30-7-1992 and made in W.P. No.6870 of 1992 and W.M.P. No. 9837 of 1992 and 1-9-1992 and made in WMP No. 16053/92 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Raghavachari Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions and of Mr. V. R. Rajasekharan Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents in both the Petitions. The Court made the following Order. The Writ Petition has to be allowed on a very short ground. The order of the second respondent was passed on 5-5-1992 and communicated to the petitioner. It made a reference to a letter dated 30-3-1992 and called upon the petitioner to remove the boiler, pipes etc. within the time specified. According to the petitioner, it has not at all received the letter dated 30-3-1992. Learned Government Advocate states that it was sent by registered post, but so far no acknowledgment has been received by the second respondent and the enquiry made with the postal authorities has not so far brought any response. In these circumstance, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the letter dated 30-3-1992 was not served on the petitioner has to be accepted. Consequently, the order dated 5-5-1992 should be held to have been passed without giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to make its representations.

(2.) The petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. In the grounds of appeal, it has stated that no opportunity was given to make representations before the impugned order was passed and it was in. violation of all canons of natural justice. In the order of the appellate authority no reference was made with regard to this matter. The appellate authority has completely accepted the report of the Inspector and proceeded to pass orders against the petitioner herein.

(3.) In these circumstances, I am convinced that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to make its representations. According to the petitioner, the rice mill is not using any boiler as defined in the Indian Boilers Act, 1923. This has to be decided by the concerned authorities. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the first respondent on 17-6-1992 and the second respondent on 5-5-1992 are quashed. The second respondent is directed to inspect the petitioner's premises and prepare notes of inspection with regard to the machinery found therein. The second respondent shall also take the signature of the petitioner on the notes of inspection in acknowledgment of his having read the same. Thereafter, the report may be forwarded to the concerned authorities and further proceedings may be taken, if it is found that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Indian Boilers Act, 1923. The petitioner wilt have remedies available to it under the Act, if the orders passed are against it. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. W.M.P. No. 16053 of 1992 In view of the disposal of the main Writ Petition, the writ miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.