IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8446 of 2007 Date of decision: 5th November, 2009 M/s Ganesh Ice Factory … Petitioner Versus Cantonment Board, Jalandhar Cantt. and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. J.S. Jardha, Advocate for respondent No.3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed by M/s Ganesh Ice Factory through its proprietor, Vijay Kumar Sharma. He seeks quashing of impugned order (Annexure P-8) dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jalandhar Cantt., whereby license issued to the petitioner for manufacturing of ice was cancelled on the ground that the premises of factory in possession of the petitioner cause endanger to the public at large and is unfit for carrying manufacturing activity in pursuance of the license. Petitioner was also directed to close the factory. Notice of motion was issued. Detailed reply has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, has drawn my attention to Annexure R/2, issued on 14th February, 2006 and has stated that the Assistant Health Officer of the Cantonment had inspected the premises, found defects and recommended necessary measures to be taken by the petitioner firm immediately, so that the factory comply with the necessary standards and no damage is caused to the Civil Writ Petition No. 8446 of 2007 persons living in the locality. A perusal of Annexure R/2 reveals that seven days’ time was given to the petitioner to immediately repair the walls and the floor. Within seven days, he was also to carry fresh electrical wiring of the entire factory, preferably the wiring was to be concealed. A perusal of recommendations shows that for an ordinary man, it is difficult to cure the defects within a short period of seven days. On 21st April, 2006, sanitary inspection of the factory was carried. Ten days’ time was given to cure the defects. The periodical inspection reports have been giving time ranging from seven days to ten days to do the needful, so that the factory is compliant with the specifications given by the inspecting team. Mr. R.S. Bajaj has submitted that without affording an opportunity to show that petitioner has made efforts in right earnest to cure the defects, the impugned order (Annexure P-8) was passed. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that had he been given due opportunity, he would have explained to the authorities that he has taken necessary initiative and the defects pointed out were in the process of being cured. Mr. Bajaj has further stated that in case now also reasonable time is given, he will do the needful as per requirements of the respondents. He further submitted that respondents may carry inspection after three months and by that time all objections, which have been given in the inspection reports, will be removed. Learned counsel has further stated that after three months if any deficiency is pointed out, he will also act in accordance with the command given by the authorities and shall make the deficiency good. Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, has stated that conduct of the petitioner is such that no further opportunity should be granted to the petitioner. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since petitioner is carrying on the work of ice manufacturing for last more 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 8446 of 2007 than 30 years and his entire livelihood is dependent upon the same and that he has made investments, it will be in the interest of justice that one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to remove the defects and comply with the requirements of the respondents. Therefore, present writ petition is disposed of with directions that petitioner shall take all necessary steps to meet the requirements of the respondents within three months from today and thereafter, an inspection will be carried by the respondents and the petitioner will be pointed out defects, if any, which are required to be removed at his end. Thereafter, in case petitioner fails to act in accordance with various directions given by the respondents, they will be at liberty to cancel the license of the petitioner by affording an opportunity of hearing to him. As a necessary sequel to the above observations, order (Annexure P-8) is set aside. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 5, 2009 rps 3