LAWS(MAD)-1988-2-61

ENNORE STEEL ENTERPRISES LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER TRIUVOTTIYUR MUNICIPALITY

Decided On February 12, 1988
ENNORE STEEL ENTERPRISES LTD. Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER, TRIUVOTTIYUR MUNICIPALITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. D. Raju, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr. K. Sridhar, Advocate for the respondent in all the petitions, the Court made the following order:All these petitions have been filed by the same petitioner Ennore Steel Enterprises Limited, against the Commissioner, Tiruvottiyur Municipality, under section 482 Cr. P.C. to call for the records relating to S.T.C. Nos. 189, 234, 235, 237, 321 and 322 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur, which are the complaints filed by the respondent the Commissioner, Tiruvottiyur Municipality, under the Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act against the petitioner, and to quash the same.

(2.) The respondent Municipality has filed the complaints against the petitioner under section 249 read with section 313 of the Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 alleging that the petitioner Ennore Streel Enterprises Limited is running a Forging Unit with 34 HP electric motor at Door No. 593/1, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Madras without obtaining a valid licence from the Executive Authority of Thiruvottiyur Municipality. The Ennore Steel Enterprises Limited was directed to stop the machinery and to remove it within 7 days by the Municipality and in spite of such notice served on the petitioner, they failed to stop and remove the machinery and thereby they committed the offence under section 249 read with section 313 of the Tamilnadu, District Municipalities Act.

(3.) Of these six cases, in S.T.C. No. 237 of 1985 the complaint mentions that the petitioner, who is the owner of the building bearing No. 593/1, T.H. Road, Ernavoor, Madras -57, has commened the installation in the site of 34 H.P. using hammer in the Forging Unit and also running the machinery without the permission of the Executive Authority of the Thiruvottiyur Municipality and hence the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under section 313 (1) (c) of the Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act; in S.T.C. No. 189 of 1985 it has been mentioned that on a from 14-1984 the petitioner is running the Forging Unit with 34 H.P. electric motor without obtaining a licence from the Municipality; in S.T.C. No 234 of 1985 the date mentioned is 4-3-1985; S.T.C. No. 235 of 1985 the dates mentioned are 5-3-1985 and 6-3-1985; in S.T.C. No. 321 of 1985 the dates mentioned are 20-3-1985 and 2 1.3.1985 and in S.T.C. No. 322 of 1985 the date mentioned is 16-3-1985, and on the above mentioned dates the petitioner had been shown to have run the machinery without obtaining a licence from the Executive Authority of the Tiruvottiyur Municipality.