SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Cal) 78

High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. BHATTACHARYYA
A.R.SINGH - Appellant
Versus
S.D.M. - Respondent
C. O.  33w  Of  1992
Decided On : 02/24/1993

Advocates Appeared:
Abdus Sattar, V.K.Gupta

A Magistrate has a statutory duty to dispose of a petition filed under Section 133, Cr. P. C. according to law.

Headnote:

PUBLIC NUISANCE - SECTION 133, CR. P. C. - SUMMARY OF THE ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERRED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT: Section 133, Cr. P. C. empowers a Magistrate to take action to remove public nuisance. The court held that the Magistrate has a statutory duty to dispose of a petition filed under Section 133, Cr. P. C. according to law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner alleged that the added Respondent No. 2 K. Sankara Rao was running a large scale poultry in the vicinity of his residence and that on account of mass killing and dressing of birds there, a public nuisance of grievous nature has been created hazarding health to the neighbours.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Magistrate has a statutory duty to dispose of a petition filed under Section 133, Cr. P. C. according to law. The court also held that the petitioner had made several attempts to get the Magistrate to take action, but the Magistrate had failed to do so.

Issues: Whether the Magistrate has a statutory duty to dispose of a petition filed under Section 133, Cr. P. C. according to law?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Magistrate has a statutory duty to dispose of a petition filed under Section 133, Cr. P. C. according to law. The court also held that the petitioner had made several attempts to get the Magistrate to take action, but the Magistrate had failed to do so.

Final Decision: The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to consider the petition filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same according to law within one month from the date of communication of the order.

A. K. BBATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that the added Respondent No. 2 K. Sankara Rao was running a large scale poultry in the vicinity of his residence and that on account of mass killing and dressing of birds there, a public nuisance of grievous nature has been created hazarding health to the neighbours. He accordingly filed an application under section 133, Cr. P. C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, South Andaman, Port Blair for causing an enquiry and taking necessary action for removing the said nuisance. It has been alleged that in spite of filing of the said application and subsequently pursuing the same by sending reminders, the Magistrate did not take any action so far. Accordingly, it has been alleged that Magistrates inaction caused injury to the petitioner and so he has prayed for an order of mandamus directing the Magistrating concerned to act in accordance with law. The first respondent is the Sub Divisional Magistrate, South Andaman. Although due notice was served on the Ld. Govt. Pleader, he has not enteryd appearance to defend the said respondent. No. Affidavit-in-Opposition has also been filed on his behalf. The added Respondent No. 2 K. Sankara Rao has, however, filed an Affidavit-in - Opposition defending the allegation made in the writ petition and a relevant affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by the writ petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. V. K. Gupta the Learned Advocate submits that he has filed an application under section 133, Cr. P. C. The Magistrate is competent to initiate a proceeding and pass necessary orders for enquiry, but he did not take any action so far against the petitioner, and as such, grievances raised by him remain unattended. Therefore, he prays that the Magistrate concerned may be directed by this Court to perform the statutory duty by passing a statutory order on the application filed by the petitioner. Annexure-A is a copy of the petition filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, South Andaman and Annexure-B is a reminder to that petition. Annexure-D is a mass petition sent to the Public Health Officer, Port Blair alleging that careless disposal of litter and waste materials of dressed birds like skull, intestine, feathers etc. by Respondent No. 2 is causing environmental pollution. It is alleged that this petition has not yielded any result. On behalf of the Respondent No. 2, Mr. Abdus Sattar, the Learned Advocate, submits that the petition filed by the writ petitioner is not a bona fide one. He also states that there are other poultry farms in the said locality but there is no objection against the working of the said poultry farms. He accordingly prays that the petition should be rejected. Mr. V. K. Gupta, the Learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of his case has mentioned two decisions passed by the High Court. One is the ORDER delivered by Dilip Kumar Basu, J. in Anil Krishna Pal v. State of West Bengali. It was held in that case that when the dispute between private parties ultimately affects rights and privileges of neighbours and members of public at large, it must be deemed to be a public nuisance caused by private citizens. The other case referred to by him, is reported in Smt. Ajeet Mehta and others v. State of Rajasthan ofothers. In the said case, A. K. Mathur, J. of Rajasthan High Court held that the opposite parties were doing business of fodder and were stocking the fodder namely chipta, pala, Kurtar Khakla and grass at a plot in certain colony. In the course of their business, the opposite parties used to bring different kinds of fodder in huge quantity through truck and tractors and stagged on the plot and consequently the residents of the locality on account of such stagging of the fodder suffered physical discomfort and it proved to be a health hazard for the residents of whole of the colony. The Magistrate ordered removed of the nuisance from the area and further directed not to do any busines

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top