PROGRESS INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above mentioned 8 Civil Writ Petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 11226 and 13134 to 13140 of 2013 have been listed together for hearing. All the above mentioned writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the facts in CWP No. 11226 of 2013. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, facts from this case are being taken. All the aforementioned 8 writ petitions preferred by the petitioner(s) arise out of the closure of the factories by the respondents on the ground that they are running in notified residential area localities, such industrial activities cannot be permitted to ran in violation of the sanctioned zoning/master plan. The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that it is running the industrial unit at Plot No. 61 at Dabuapali Road, extension area, NIT Faridabad and is manufacturing auto parts which are being supplied to various companies i.e. Honda, Maruti etc. Respondent No. 4 who is alleged to be also running commercial activities had given an application against the petitioner and others that the unit is running in the residential locality which is not an approved colony. The respondent -Corporation issued a notice dated 31.05.2012 to close down the unit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit for injunction challenging the notice. Ultimately that suit was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action vide order dated 18.04.2013 (Annexure P/10). Instead of filing the suit, present writ petition has been filed. It is also the pleaded case of the petitioner that there are about 1,70,000 small scale industries running in the area and the petitioner's unit is a small scale industry running since 1952. It is also pleaded that area in question is not approved residential area by the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. Only the unit of the petitioner has been wrongly closed down, whereas, more than 500 industries are running in the said locality.

(2.) UPON notice, respondents No. 2 and 3 filed joint written statement and respondent No. 4 filed separate written statement. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement have taken objection that the petitioner is running the factory in violation of the provisions of Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") specifically Sections 330, 331 and 332. Petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit which was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner is running a power press of 200 ton capacity without permission to run the heavy press which is causing nuisance to the neighbouring inhabitants. The petitioner was given due notice to shift its unit within 7 days from the receipt of letter dated 08.11.2012, but it had not complied with the said notice.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.