(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the letters dated May 23, 1998, April 7, 1999 and April 19, 1999 issued by the respondent no. 2 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 2 has directed the petitioner to register the water treatment plant at Patratu Water Works of the petitioner under the Factories Act as the said water treatment plant according to the respondent no. 2 comes within the definition of the Factories act. The further prayer is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for a declaration that the water treatment plant is not a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under: the water treatment plant of the petitioner was inspected by the respondent concerned and notice was issued on May 23, 1998 to register the water treatment plant under the provision of factories Act. The petitioner gave reply vide its letter dated February 27, 1999 stating inter-alia therein that the Factories Act is not applicable as the petitioner's water treatment plant does not come within the definition of the Factories act. Again, a notice was issued on April 7, 1999 stating that the manufacturing process was being carried out in the plant and this it was mandatorily registered under the Factories Act followed by another letter dated April 19, 1999. The petitioner being constrained preferred this writ petition challenging the aforesaid notices.
(3.) THE main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no manufacturing process and the plant was set-up as welfare measure to supply fresh and purified water to the citizen of the locality. It has further been submitted that it cannot be said to be a factory more so when it was situated within the mining area.