Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Shridhar Kashinath Bhagat – Appellant
Versus
Sub-Divisional Officer at Panvel – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. These Petitions are filed by Petitioners, who operate stone crushing plants and are aggrieved by orders dated 28 June 2024 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panvel, under provisions of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) directing closure of their crusher plants.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Petitions are that Petitioners claim to be owners and occupants of various lands at Village -Jasai, Taluka - Uran, District-Raigad. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) has granted ‘Consent to Operate’ in favour of Petitioners for manufacture of Asphalt Mix Plant, crushing and washing sand, stone metal, crushed stone and grit powder, etc, which are commonly referred to as ‘stone crushing plants’ in the present order.
3. According to Petitioners, MPCB is the principal regulator tasked with overseeing and managing pollution control efforts relating to their stone crushing plants. Petitioners claim to have acquired various other permissions and NOCs required for operation of stone crushing plants. They also have been issued mining licenses under the provisions of Maharashtra Minor M
A conditional order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is essential before final orders can be issued, but temporary measures can be taken to ensure public safety pending investigati....
The court emphasized that a conditional order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory for initiating proceedings, and failure to comply renders subsequent actions invalid.
Public nuisance requires substantial proof of injury to the community; judicial discretion in abating nuisance is contingent upon credible evidence.
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....
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 pr....
Proceedings under Section 133 Cr.PC require evidence of public nuisance; private disputes cannot be adjudicated under this provision.
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 does not allow it to act as an appellate court; it corrects errors only when a grave injustice occurs due to procedural violations.
The court upheld the closure of a manufacturing unit for serious environmental violations, emphasizing the authority of pollution boards to act expediently in cases of grave environmental harm.
The intervention under S. 133 Cr. P.C. requires clear evidence of community harm, which was not established.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
