2014 Supreme(Raj) 1377
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Ashok Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 586 of 2013.
Decided On : 29-04-2014
For the Petitioner:Pradeep Shah, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Rakesh Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6:Vikram Choudhary for Rakesh Arora, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Deepak Choudhary, Public Prosecutor.
THE MUNICIPAL BOARD HAS THE POWER TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PUBLIC STREETS FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF TRAFFIC OR TO REGULATE THE PARKING OF PRIVATE VEHICLES ON PUBLIC PLACES. WHEN THERE IS A PERSISTENT DEMAND TO RESTRICT THE FLOW OF HEAVY VEHICLES IN A STREET, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD TO CONSIDER THE DEMAND AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON IT.
Headnote:
PUBLIC NUISANCE - SECTIONS 252 AND 253 OF THE RAJASTHAN MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 2009 - [SECTION 252, 253] - THE COURT HELD THAT THE MUNICIPAL BOARD HAS THE POWER TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PUBLIC STREETS FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF TRAFFIC OR TO REGULATE THE PARKING OF PRIVATE VEHICLES ON PUBLIC PLACES. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS A PERSISTENT DEMAND TO RESTRICT THE FLOW OF HEAVY VEHICLES IN A STREET, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD TO CONSIDER THE DEMAND AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON IT.
Fact of the Case:
THE PETITIONER AND OTHER PERSONS FILED A COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 133 CRPC BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT, ALLEGING THAT THE MUNICIPAL BOARD HAD OBSTRUCTED A PUBLIC STREET BY INSTALLING IRON PILLARS. THE TRIAL COURT ALLOWED THE COMPLAINT AND DIRECTED THE MUNICIPAL BOARD TO REMOVE THE OBSTRUCTIONS. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD FILED A REVISION PETITION, WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE REVISIONAL COURT. THE PETITIONER THEN FILED A CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT.
Finding of the Court:
THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE MUNICIPAL BOARD HAD THE POWER TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PUBLIC STREETS FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF TRAFFIC OR TO REGULATE THE PARKING OF PRIVATE VEHICLES ON PUBLIC PLACES. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS A PERSISTENT DEMAND TO RESTRICT THE FLOW OF HEAVY VEHICLES IN A STREET, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD TO CONSIDER THE DEMAND AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON IT. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD ERRED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT WHETHER THE IRON PILLARS PLACED BY THE MUNICIPAL BOARD COULD BE TERMED AS PUBLIC NUISANCE.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE MUNICIPAL BOARD HAS THE POWER TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PUBLIC STREETS FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF TRAFFIC OR TO REGULATE THE PARKING OF PRIVATE VEHICLES ON PUBLIC PLACES. 2. WHETHER IT IS THE DUTY OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD TO CONSIDER A PERSISTENT DEMAND TO RESTRICT THE FLOW OF HEAVY VEHICLES IN A STREET AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON IT. 3. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT WHETHER THE IRON PILLARS PLACED BY THE MUNICIPAL BOARD COULD BE TERMED AS PUBLIC NUISANCE.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT RELIED ON SECTIONS 252 AND 253 OF THE RAJASTHAN MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 2009, WHICH EMPOWER THE MUNICIPALITY TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PUBLIC STREETS FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF TRAFFIC OR TO REGULATE THE PARKING OF PRIVATE VEHICLES ON PUBLIC PLACES. THE COURT ALSO RELIED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN THERE IS A PERSISTENT DEMAND TO RESTRICT THE FLOW OF HEAVY VEHICLES IN A STREET, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD TO CONSIDER THE DEMAND AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON IT. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD ERRED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT WHETHER THE IRON PILLARS PLACED BY THE MUNICIPAL BOARD COULD BE TERMED AS PUBLIC NUISANCE.
Final Decision: THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION.
JUDGMENT
1. - This criminal revision petition under section 37 read with section 401 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No.25/2012, whereby the revision petition filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 has been allowed and the revisional court has set aside the order dated 0.07.2012 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sumerpur, District Pali (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr.Case No.10/2010.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with three other persons has filed a complaint against the Municipal Board, Sumerpur (for short 'the Municipal Board' hereinafter) under section 133 CrPC before the trial court with the averment that there exists a lane adjoining to the main market in town Sumerpur and the same is a business street, which leads to Vishvakarma Dharmshala. It is further contended that in the said street, the house of sitting Member of Municipal Board is situated and the said Member for her convenience and for the inconvenience of other residents made an attempt to obstruct the street by installing iron pillars resulted in narrowing down the road. It is further contended that on 18.08.2010 at about 11:00 A.M. the employees of the Municipal Board came to place iron pillars, however inhabitants of the street have resisted but the Municipal Board has obstructed the road by placing iron pillars.
3. Before the trial court, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 filed an application for being impleaded as party but the same was rejected vide order dated 24.0.2010. However, in a revision petition preferred on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6, the revisional court vide order dated 18.11.2010, directed the trial court to implead the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as party and also directed to decide the proceedings under section 133 CrPC after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
4. The trial court called for the report from the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sumerpur and after receiving the same, recorded the evidence of the parties and vide order dated 0.07.2012, allowed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner and other persons and directed to remove the obstructions placed on the public way.
5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 0.07.2012 passed by the trial court, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 preferred a revision petition, which is allowed by the revisional court vide order dated 25.07.2013 and the order dated 0.07.2012 passed by the trial court has been set aside.
6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.07.2013, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds raised in the revision petition, has argued that obstruction on the public way was placed at the instance of the Ward Member of the Municipal Board for political reasons and the trial court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the police report submitted by the S.H.O., Police Station, Sumerpur, has passed a reasoned order and rightly directed to remove the obstructions raised on the public way, however, the revisional court, without taking into consideration the factual position, has illegally allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the trial court. It is contended that there is no complaint on behalf of any of the residents but the trial court altogether ignored this aspect of the matter and passed the impugned order.
8. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as well as the Municipal Board have strenuously contended that the petitioner and other persons, who had filed the application under section 133 CrPC before the trial court, are the businessmen and their godown's are situated in the street in question, wherein the traffic is blocked on account of fr
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
