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

2019 Supreme(Guj) 1123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
B.N. KARIA, J.
Mulubhai – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Revision Application No. 1065 of 2019
Decided On : 21-10-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajesh K. Savjani
For the Respondents: S.N. Thakkar and M.H. Bhatt, APP

Point of Law: under Section 133 of CrPC in case of removal of nuisance if any, brought to his notice either by a report from any police officer or any other information. The Magistrate is certainly empowered to take in evidence any other particulars that required for passing of the final order in the same shape or in the modified form, after giving an opportunity to the party concerned

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 397 read with Section 401 – Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960 - Rule 14 - Revision - Issue of maintainability of the revision - No imminent danger to the health and physical comfort of the community on 01.03.2018, the question of attracting provisions under Section 133 of CrPC would not arise by the respondent no. 2 or, and hence, the impugned order challenged by the applicant cannot be said to be illegal or perverse and no interference is required by this Court

Facts of the Case:

Because of severe noise pollution created by the respondent no. 3 Company in production of calcined bauxite and without any safeguards, company stored raw materials and semi finished bauxite open to air in a place outside and inside the Company's premises, which is dangerous to life and health, more particularly of the fact that the residential premises and two primary schools and hospital are situated near the Company and complaints thereof were forwarded to the authorities to look into the aspect of nuisance. The applicant further contended that on 28th December 2015, a complaint was presented by the residents of village Harshadpura, Taluka: Khambhalia, Dist: Devbhumi Dwarka, by which, it was brought to the notice of the authority that conduct of trade and occupation of one M/s. Bombay Minerals Limited is injurious to the health and physical comfort for students and public, and therefore, a prayer was made to inquire into the complaint

Finding of the Court:

Petitioner straightway approached the High Court by preferring the revision application without approaching the Sessions Court. Considering the provisions of new Code regarding revision, it was held that High Court cannot in changed circumstances refuse to entertain the petition under Section 397(1) on the ground that Sessions Judge had not been moved before High Court was approached. Rule 14 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960 was considered and treated as having stood abrogated. Merely, the petitioner has not approached the Sessions Court in first instance, he cannot be refused for asking the relief as sought by him before the Court and thus, the submission made by learned advocate for the respondent on this point cannot be sustained.

Result: Petition rejected

JUDGMENT :

B.N. Karia, J.

1. By preferring this revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (In short "CrPC"), the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 1st March 2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khambhalia in Case No. Criminal/133/2/2017 and requested to direct the District Magistrate Devbhoomi Dwarka to adjudicate and decide Case No. Criminal/133/2/2017 on merits and in accordance with law along with further prayer made in para 37(D), 37(E) and 37(F) of the application.

2. Short facts of the present case may be summarized as under:

2.1 As per the contents of the applicant, because of severe noise pollution created by the respondent no. 3 Company in production of calcined bauxite and without any safeguards, company stored raw materials and semi finished bauxite open to air in a place outside and inside the Company's premises, which is dangerous to life and health, more particularly of the fact that the residential premises and two primary schools and hospital are situated near the Company and complaints thereof were forwarded to the authorities to look into the aspect of nuisance. The applicant further contended that on 28th December 2015, a complaint was presented by the residents of village Harshadpura, Taluka: Khambhalia, Dist: Devbhumi Dwarka, by which, it was brought to the notice of the authority that conduct of trade and occupation of one M/s. Bombay Minerals Limited is injurious to the health and physical comfort for students and public, and therefore, a prayer was made to inquire into the complaint. Thereafter, also another complaint dated 23.11.2016 was made to the Regional Manager, Gujarat Pollution Control Board about the pollution of air remission by company-respondent no. 3. As nothing was heard from the authority and no action was taken by the concerned authority, applicant approached the District Magistrate on 4th April 2017 under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and prayed for initiation of inquiry in relation to nuisance. That, in consideration of representation dated 23.11.2016 and 04.04.2017, Gujarat Pollution Control Board (In short "GPCB") made a surprise visit of the respondent company and prepared a site visit report dated 20.04.2017. GPCB directed the respondent no. 3 to take remedial measures in the interest of residents and to control the pollution. As per the contents, the respondent company failed to comply with the aforesaid directions issued by the GPCB and continued illegal activities of production of calcined bauxite. However, report dated 20.04.2017 was available with the District Magistrate, Devbhumi Dwarka, illegal activities of the respondent company is continued and no proper action was taken under Section 133 CrPC. That, on 22.11.2017, District Magistrate was sitting tight over the complaint, applicant has approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No. 9111 of 2017 and prayed to issue direction against the District Magistrate to decide the complaints in accordance with law. That, this Court was pleased to pass an order dated 27th November 2017 directing the District Magistrate to decide the complaints in accordance with law and take an appropriate decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order.

2.2 That, thereafter on 5th January 2018, Resident District Additional Collector directed Prant Officer, Khambhalia, GPCB Jamnagar and Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Khambalia to carry out joint inspection of the unit. That, on 11th January 2018, a joint visit-inspection in relation to activities of Ashapura Mines @ Bombay Minerals was carried out in presence of the applicant by government officers and panchnama was drawn by SDM, Khambhalia and report was prepared by the GPCB. Thereafter, on 17th January 2018, SDM Khambhalia submitted a panchnama dated 11.01.2018 drawn at the site of Ashapura Mines Company Ltd. @ Bombay Mineral and requested th

              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