The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope and procedure of Sec. 133 of Cr.P.C. in addressing public nuisance and the requirement for recording reasons for administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J.

1. The petitioner and respondent no. 3 are both residents of a gated Society called the Harbans Vihar Society at Ribandar in Goa and they are before this Court on the basis of proceedings initiated at the behest of respondent no. 3, under Sec. 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner is aggrieved by notices dtd. 26/2/2020 and 9/10/2020, issued by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Joint Executive Magistrate. While initiating proceedings under Sec. 133 of Cr.P.C., the respondent no. 2-Magistrate passed a conditional order dtd. 5/2/2021, issuing specific directions against the petitioner and another resident of the said Society, which is also subject matter of challenge.

2. The respondent no. 3, filed a complaint dtd. 2/12/2019, before the Collector of North Goa, claiming that there was an ongoing problem with regard to stray dogs being fed by some members of the Society inside the premises of the Society, leading to nuisance in the form of danger to the residents and in some cases, to the pets of the residents of the said Society. Respondent no. 1, called upon the Collector to take appropriate steps in the matter. In the said complaint, the respondent no. 3 referred to three earlier complaints dtd. 26/7/2019, 16/9/2019 and 8/11/2019, submitted in respect of the aforesaid alleged nuisance. Copies of the said earlier complaints/applications were annexed to the aforesaid complaint dtd. 2/12/2019. In the earlier complaint dtd. 26/7/2019, the petitioner was specifically named as one of the persons, who was feeding the stray dogs within the premises of the Society, allegedly leading to nuisance. In the complaint dtd. 16/9/2019, six residents of the Society had raised grievance before the Collector as well as the Health Officer and the Secretary of the Village Panchayat.

3. On 27/12/2019, the Additional District Magistrate of North Goa, issued a memorandum to the respondent no. 2-Magistrate, referring to the complaint dtd. 2/12/2019, submitted by respondent no. 3 and directed initiation of necessary action under Sec. 133 of Cr.P.C. after obtaining report from the Talathi, in accordance with law. On 7/2/2020, the Talathi submitted a report to the respondent no. 2-Magistrate, wherein it was stated that stray dogs were indeed being fed within the premises of the Society, further stating that directions were necessary to the members to refrain from feeding dogs from the street within the compound as it may cause danger to the residents of the Society.

4. On 26/2/2020, the respondent no. 2-Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner and one more resident of the said Society, referring to the complaint dtd. 2/12/2019, submitted by respondent no. 3 and the fact that the Additional District Magistrate directed action to be initiated under Sec. 133 of Cr.P.C. A reference was made to the said report of the Talathi and thereupon, the petitioner and the other resident were directed to remain present before the respondent no. 2-Magistrate on 9/3/2020.

5. On 6/8/2020/2/9/2020, the respondent no. 3 submitted further communication to the respondent no. 2-Magistrate stating that although, dates of hearing were scheduled on 9/3/2020, 30/3/2020 and 24/7/2020, the hearing could not take place because of Covid-19 pandemic. In this communication, a specific grievance was made against another resident of the Society, Mr. Amit Chaddha, on the ground that he was allegedly indulging in the same activities as the petitioner and he was also unleashing his pet dogs. Specific instances were stated regarding dog fights in the Society and urgent action was prayed for.

6. On 9/10/2020, the respondent no. 2-Magistrate, issued notice to the petitioner and two other residents of the said Society for remaining present on 28/10/2020, in respect of the proceedings initiated against them under Sec. 133 of Cr.P.C. In the interregnum, the Police Inspector of Old Goa Police Station submitted a report before the respondent no. 2-