Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
M.Jaggubar Ali and ors. – Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector cum District Magistrate Salem District, Salem and ors. – Respondents
Crl.R.C.No.276 of 2010
Decided On : 11.08.2015
Criminal Revision Case - Proceedings under Section 133(1)(e) Cr.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 133(1)(e) Cr.P.C., Section 133(1)(d) Cr.P.C., Section 137 Cr.P.C., Section 138 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the application of Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the necessity of a conditional order, and the requirement of a show cause notice before passing an order under Section 133. The court also highlighted the importance of the District Collector's power to pass an order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. despite a wrong provision being quoted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, running shops in a temple premises, were directed to vacate the shops by the District Collector under Section 133(1)(e) Cr.P.C. The petitioners challenged the order, claiming violation of procedure and wrongful application of the section. The court found that the petitioners had agreed to vacate the premises in a previous case and had suppressed material facts in the present case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had suppressed material facts, violated an undertaking given to the court, and filed successive proceedings on the same cause of action, amounting to an abuse of process of law. The court upheld the District Collector's order for removal of the dilapidated construction.
Issues: Violation of procedure under Section 133 Cr.P.C., suppression of material facts, abuse of process of law, and violation of an undertaking given to the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' conduct amounted to an abuse of process of law and that they were not entitled to squat over the dilapidated building. The court also emphasized the importance of disclosing true, complete, and correct facts when invoking the court's jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court sustained the District Collector's order for removal of the dilapidated construction, finding the petitioners' conduct to be an abuse of process of law and a violation of an undertaking given to the court.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The case involves proceedings under Section 133(1)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code, relating to the removal of dilapidated structures that pose a danger to public safety (!) (!) .
The District Collector passed an order under Section 133(1)(e) to demolish certain shops in a temple premises, citing public safety concerns due to the condition of the structures (!) (!) .
The petitioners, who occupy shops within the temple complex, challenged the order, claiming procedural violations, lack of proper notice, and misapplication of the relevant legal provisions (!) (!) .
It was argued that the order was based on the incorrect citation of the legal provision—Section 133(1)(e) instead of Section 133(1)(d)—but the court held that such a misquotation does not invalidate a valid order passed by a competent authority (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the authority’s power to pass such an order is not vitiated by quoting the wrong provision, provided the order is within the scope of its jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The petitioners had previously given an undertaking to vacate the premises by a specified date, which they failed to adhere to, leading to the conclusion that they were not in lawful tenancy but rather squatting (!) (!) .
There is a finality to earlier orders that rejected the petitioners’ claims of tenancy or lease, and no material was presented to show that this position had changed (!) (!) .
The court noted that the petitioners did not produce adequate evidence to establish tenancy rights and that their conduct, including suppression of material facts and filing successive proceedings, amounted to an abuse of process (!) (!) .
The order for demolition was supported by expert reports indicating the structures’ dilapidated and unsafe condition, and the necessity for immediate removal to prevent danger to the public (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the relevant legal provisions provide for the removal or repair of structures in dangerous condition, and the authority’s decision to demolish was justified based on safety considerations (!) (!) .
The proceedings demonstrate that procedural irregularities, such as the absence of a formal show cause notice, do not automatically invalidate an order if the authority had the requisite jurisdiction and proper grounds (!) .
The court underscored that the conduct of the petitioners, including their prior undertakings and suppression of facts, disqualifies them from claiming equitable relief or procedural protections (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court upheld the validity of the District Collector’s order, dismissing the challenge based on procedural and substantive grounds, and reaffirmed that the order was within the scope of the authority’s powers despite the quoting error (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this case.
Criminal revision case is filed against the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8084/2009/C3, dated 05.06.2009, of the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Salem, 1st respondent, who in exercise of his powers, under Section 133(1)(e) Cr.P.C., has directed to remove the dilapidated construction.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that in the abovesaid premises, belonging to Arulmigu Kottai Mariammal Koil, Salem, the petitioners are running fancy stores and other business, for several years. Totally, there are 46 shops, out of which, 21 shops are in terraced roof building and the remaining shops are in thatched roof building. The petitioners are in occupation of 12 thatched roof shops and paying rents from 1963 onwards, to the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Salem, the 3rd respondent herein. The Executive Officer of Arulmigu Kottai Mariammal Koil, Salem, 4th respondent herein, has requested (1)Rajamanickam (Shop No.36/255), (2)P.Shanmugam, (3)K.Vijaya (Shop No.36/23E), to vacate their respective shops and lateron, permitted them, to construct shops, as permanent building, with their own costs, in the same portion occupied by them. One Sheik Basha, was also permitted to construct a new shop, within the same complex.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that a Five Member Committee has been constituted the name of “Arangavalar Kuzhu”, for the administration of Arulmigu Kottai Mariammal Koil, Salem. They belong to the ruling party. They started giving troubles to the petitioners. They directed them to vacate the shops. By proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8084/2009/C3, dated 05.06.2009, the District Collector has passed orders, directing the petitioners to vacate the shops. Pursuant to the above, the Executive Officer of the abovesaid temple, 4th respondent herein, took steps to vacate the petitioners. A shortcut method was used by one Radhakrishnan, who is a close friend of Members of Arangavalar Kuzhu, by stating that the compound wall of the temple, close to the shops was causing danger to the general public. One of the Office Bearers of the Association, viz., “Sri Kottai Peria Mariamman Thirukoil Valaga Siru Viyaparigal Nala Sangam”, having 21 shops, in the same campus, by colluding with the Arangavalar Kuzhu, has given a representation to the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Salem, 1st respondent herein, for demolition of the compound wall and shops. According to the petitioners, no notice was given to them, who are in occupation and thus, it is violative of Section 133(1) Cr.P.C.
4. In addition to the above, Mr.M.Pari, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Salem, 1st respondent herein, has erroneously invoked Section 133(1)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code, instead of 133(1)(d) Cr.P.C., and instead of demolition, a direction to repair or support of such compound wall, could have been issued.
5. Inviting the attention of this Court to Section 137 of the Criminal Procedure Code, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before an order is passed, under Section 133, the Magistrate shall, on the appearance before him, of the person against whom, to be made, question and enquire him and therefore, in the absence of following the said procedure, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. It is also his contention that when Section 133 Cr.P.C., contemplates a show cause notice, a summary procedure and without providing an opportunity to the petitioners, who are in occupation of the shops, for many years, the District Collector cum District Magistrate, ought not to have been passed orders for demolition, as if, the building is causing danger to the general public. It is his further contention that a conditional order ought to have been passed, under Section 138 Cr.P.C., before an order, under Section 133 Cr.P.C., is made.
7. Per contra, Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, submitte
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
