Using Welding Machine In Residential Society Is Nuisance: Gujarat HC Says Orally, Issues Notice On Plea To Quash Order Against Welding Unit

Lovina B Thakkar

16 Jan 2025 12:29 PM

  • Using Welding Machine In Residential Society Is Nuisance: Gujarat HC Says Orally, Issues Notice On Plea To Quash Order Against Welding Unit

    Hearing a man's plea for quashing an order concerning alleged nuisance caused by his 25-year-old welding unit stated to be operating at the outskirts of a residential society, the Gujarat High Court on Thursday (January 16) while issuing notice orally said that if machines are used for welding in residential society it would amount to nuisance. The petitioner has sought setting aside/quashing...

    Hearing a man's plea for quashing an order concerning alleged nuisance caused by his 25-year-old welding unit stated to be operating at the outskirts of a residential society, the Gujarat High Court on Thursday (January 16) while issuing notice orally said that if machines are used for welding in residential society it would amount to nuisance.  

    The petitioner has sought setting aside/quashing of November 14, 2024  sessions court order which had which had set aside a sub-divisional magistrate's order, and had further directed closing of the unit and to shift it within 60 days. As interim relief the petitioner had sought stay on the sessions court's order. 

    During the hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before Justice Sandeep Bhatt that a complaint was filed against the petitioner's welding business located at the outskirts of the society that was already approved by the Nagar Palika in Kheda.

    The petitioner's counsel said that complainant/respondent resided in the same society. He said that initially the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had passed an order in the petitioner's favour. 

    At this stage the court orally asked, "You are creating nuisance?". To this the petitioner's counsel said that nobody had said so and there was no notice from even the Nagar Palika on this issue. 

    He claimed that the complainant had "some personal grievance" adding that this business was operating since the past 25 years. He said that the order passed by the sessions court in November last year was based on "conjectures and surmises", that there is no concurrent finding and the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate is passed in the favour of the petitioner.

    He also contended that he is living in the society and is the member of the housing society and contended that he has the permit and license to carry out his business therefore, it is not an illegal venture.

    The court at this stage orally said, “It is nuisance if you use machines for welding in a residential society.” The Counsel then answered that no one has ever had a grievance and even the corporation is the party in the present matter and there should be a scientific (evidence) for that.

    The court thereafter orally asked, “Whether you are disputing that you are not having business of welding in the residential, housing society? Whether you are carrying out this in the housing society? These activities are creating nuisance, he (complainant) is right in saying so. What if you are doing it (welding) in the road but Municipality is so kind. There are people in the welding business who weld the iron bars on the road and people have to take different route to further crossThis cant be permitted...in residential society you can't...it amounts to nuisance in the residential society. He (complainant) is right. Somebody had the courage to say it and challenge it".

    The petitioner's counsel contended that the statements of the members of society is taken wherein, the members did not agree to nuisance and pointed to the photographs of the unit. He said since 25 years his business had been operating and that it was "legal unit".

    At this stage the court orally said, “You must be a high handed person”. To this the counsel said that it has not come anywhere that the petitioner is a high-handed person. The court however orally said, “Take chance. I am not staying anything. Notice”. 

    The Counsel then urged the Court to allow some interim relief as he is working there since 25 years and it could affect his survival. 

    To this the Court orally said, “You should face the music. Since you are having business since last 25 years, take chance.”

    The Court then issued notice on the plea as well as the interim reliefs sought by the petitioner. 

    Case Title: Shailendra Samuelbhai Vaghela vs State of Gujarat & Ors.

    Counsel for the Petitioner: Aaditya Asthavadi, Advocate
    Counsel for the State: Chetna Shah, Adittional Public Prosecutor

    Next Story