IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the exercise of power under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. is justified in cases of imminent danger to public safety, and such powers can be exercised even in the context of private disputes.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard finally.

2. By this application, the applicant has challenged order passed by the respondent No.1 - Tahsildar under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C. "), whereby the respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Officer of the Municipal Council has been directed to demolish a structure in which the applicants and their predecessors claimed to be tenants. The applicants have also challenged judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, whereby revision application was dismissed and the aforesaid order of the respondent No.1 - Tahsildar was confirmed.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present application are that the respondent no.3 i.e. the owner of the said structure received a notice on 27/10/2010, from the respondent No.2 - Chief Officer, Municipal Council under Section 195 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, asking the respondent No.3 to demolish the structure in question within seven days, since the said structure was dilapidated and there was possibility of loss of life and financial loss if the structure was not demolished. On 02/08/2011, the respondent No.3 applied before the respondent No.1 - Tahsildar for permission to demolish the structure, in view of the possibility of loss of life and financial loss. On this basis, the respondent No.1- Tahsildar initiated proceeding under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. On 15/10/2011, the respondent No.1 - Tahsildar passed an order exercising power under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. and directed removal/demolition of the said structure.

4. The applicants filed a revision application before the Sessions Court, challenging the said order of the respondent No.1 - Tahsildar. By order dated 01/11/2011, the Sessions Court partly allowed the revision application. It was found that although a public notice was issued by the respondent No.1 - Tahsildar before passing the said order, but, the concerned persons were not put to notice when the order of demolition was issued. Therefore, the order of respondent No.1 - Tahsildar was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

5. Upon remand, the respondent No.1 - Tahsildar called for a spot inspection report, which confirmed the dilapidated nature of the structure and the fact that it would be a nuisance to the public. Since there was grievance raised in the matter that the said inspection report was not prepared in presence of all parties, a fresh spot inspection was conducted. A report dated 07/02/2015, was prepared on the specific instructions of the respondent No.2 - Chief Officer of the Municipal Council. The spot inspection was carried out in the presence of the Naib-Tahsildar, the applicants as well as the respondent No.3 and the Engineer of the respondent No.2 - Municipal Council. The report prepared in pursuance of the said spot inspection, along with the map annexed therewith, placed on record the condition of the structure in question. It was recorded in the report that the structure was in a highly dilapidated condition and parts of it had already fallen.

6. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 - Tahsildar gave hearing to the contesting parties and upon taking into consideration the aforesaid spot inspection report dated 07/02/2015, he concluded that the said structure was in such a condition that it was likely to fall and cause injuries to persons and that its removal was necessary. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 - Tahsildar directed removal / demolition of the said structure.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants filed revision application before the Sessions Court. By the judgment and order dated 26/04/2019, the Sessions Court dismissed the revision application and confirmed the order of Tahsildar.

8. The applicants filed the present application challenging the said orders passed by the respondent No.1 - Tahsildar and the Sessions Court. On 07/08/2019,