IMPORTANT POINT
Removal of nuisance – If a proceedee does not perform act as warranted by conditional order or fails to appear and show cause against conditional order, he shall be liable to prosecution under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and in that case conditional order shall be made absolute.

JUDGMENT

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ.—We have noticed disturbing trend of the people approaching this Court by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as “PIL”) concerning such matters, which could be duly addressed by the functionaries of the State (within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India) including those, who have been vested with clear statutory powers under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) and other provisions. Because numerous cases in the shape of PIL are being filed in this Court seeking direction for removal of encroachments from public places or removal of obstruction or nuisance from public places and also for removal of substances, injurious to health, maintenance of hygiene, etc., coupled with admitted inaction, in the majority of the cases, on the part of the officials, we have formed a prima facie impression, in our mind, that it is largely because the authorities have failed to exercise the powers conferred upon them under Section 133 of the Code and other mandatory statutory provisions and thereby omitting to perform their corresponding duties imposed upon them under Section 133 of the Code, rendering the said provisions irrelevant, redundant and otiose. This, possibly, maybe the reason why the litigants, who could have otherwise approached the District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrates concerned seeking to invoke their powers under Section 133 of the Code, which deals with the removal of unlawful obstructions and nuisances, etc, are thus, being, advertently or inadvertently, made to approach this Court for the exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Exercise of jurisdiction, that too in PIL, cannot be made a routine affair, particularly when an alternative efficacious remedy is statutorily available. The present case is one such example where the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the opposite parties for eviction of encroachers residing over the land allotted in favour of the Dean and Principal of Saheed Laxman Nayak Medical College and Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “SLNMCH”), Koraput. It has been stated in the writ petition that the said SLNMCH has been established by the Government. For its infrastructure and other facilities, the Government has provided about 21.43 acres of land in favour of the Dean and Principal of SLNMCH (opposite party no.6). It has been asserted that some people have encroached upon the allotted land and some of them have even constructed their houses. The opposite party no.6 had written to the Collector, Koraput (opposite party no.2) for eviction of the encroachers from the allotted land, and the opposite party No.2, in turn, had requested the Sub-Collector, Koraput (opposite party No.3) to evict the encroachers from the allotted land. Thereafter, the Sub-Collector, Koraput asked the Dean and Principal of SLNMCH (opposite party no.6) to furnish the list of encroachers, who had occupied the land unauthorisedly. It is the petitioner’s grievance that opposite party No.6 has not supplied the list of encroachers to the Sub-Collector, which is the consequence of blocking the developmental works of SLNMCH. This has caused a serious obstacle in the way of proper utilization of funds pending with the Dean and Principal of SLNMCH (opposite party no.6) for the construction of B.Sc. Nursing College attached to SLNMCH. The petitioner claims that after having sent the aforesaid letters and seen the inaction of opposite party No.6, he addressed a letter to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Odisha, for eviction of encroachers, who have unauthorisedly occupied the allotted land in favour of opposite party No.6. He again made a representation to opposite party No.2 requestin