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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3202

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.S. RAMESH, M. NIRMAL KUMAR, JJ.
Super Saravana Stores, Represented by its Managing Director, Madurai - Appellant
Versus
Henri Tiphagne & Ors. - Respondents
W.A.(MD). No. 1330 of 2023 & CMP(MD). No. 10050 of 2023
Decided On : 14-08-2023

Advocates appeared: For the Appellant :P. Valliappan, Senior Counsel, P. Thiyagarajan, Advocates. For the Respondents:R6, S. Vinayak, Standing Counsel, R8, R9 & R11, J. Ashok, Additional Government Pleader, R1, Henry Tiphagne, Party in person, R2 to R5, A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Advocate.

An intra Court appeal would not lie against the order of a learned Single Judge in exercise of his powers under criminal jurisdiction.

Headnote:

Public Nuisance - Criminal Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 133 - The court discussed the nature of the writ petition, which was filed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for removal of public nuisances. The court emphasized that the writ petition was under exercise of criminal jurisdiction and held that an intra Court appeal would not lie against the order of a learned Single Judge in exercise of his powers under criminal jurisdiction. The court relied on case laws to support its finding and dismissed the writ appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, who had issued directions for identifying and removing alleged public nuisances. The first respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, contending that the order was passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the order dealt with the issue as a Public Interest Litigation and therefore, the appeal was maintainable.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the writ petition was filed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for removal of public nuisances and was under exercise of criminal jurisdiction. It held that an intra Court appeal would not lie against the order of a learned Single Judge in exercise of his powers under criminal jurisdiction.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, who had issued directions for identifying and removing alleged public nuisances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the nature of the writ petition, which was filed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for removal of public nuisances, and the prohibition of an intra Court appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge exercising the powers of criminal jurisdiction.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal, holding that it was not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 12.06.2023 in W.P.(MD) No.28841 of 2022.)

M.S. Ramesh, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in W.P.(MD) No.28841 of 2022 dated 12.06.2023, whereby the learned Single Judge had issued series of directions for identifying the existence of certain alleged public nuisances and for removal/rectification of such nuisances. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Madras High Court Letters Patent.

2. The first respondent/party-in-person raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this appeal contending that the order of the learned single Judge was passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction and therefore, an intra Court appeal is barred in view of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. In response, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant attempted to substantiate its maintainability by stating that the order in question dealt the issue in hand as a Public Interest Litigation and therefore, this appeal is maintainable.

4. The brief facts that led to the passing of the impugned order by the learned Single Judge are as follows: The first respondent had given written petitions dated 12.12.2022 and 17.12.2022 to the Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Madurai City Corporation and the Superintending Engineer of the Public Works Department under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for action against certain alleged nuisance created at Melur Road owing to traffic congestion and inconvenience to the public pedestrians owing to the unorganised facilities provided for parking at the appellant's stores as well as the 10th respondent's hospital premises.

5. The writ petition was listed before the learned Single Judge, who exercised powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in addition to hearing of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dealing with the criminal proceedings. Before the learned Single Judge, the maintainability of the writ petition in criminal jurisdiction was challenged, which was negatived by holding that it is one under criminal jurisdiction and therefore, maintainable. The relevant portion of the orders reads as follows:

“14. The next contention raised on behalf of the ninth respondent that the present writ petition which contains so many allegations about the duty of the various departments of the Government cannot be treated as a Writ Petition (Crl.), that the suo motu action of this Court impleading the Director of Town and Country Planning, calling for reports from the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation about the planning permission and construction, from the District Officer, Fire and Rescue Department, are all beyond the purview of the subject roster assigned to this Bench and therefore, the ninth respondent is opposing the listing of the above writ petition before this Bench.

15. At the outset, the above contention of the ninth respondent, in the view of this Court, is ridiculous. First of all, the plea was not at all raised in the earlier hearings, but was canvassed in the final arguments. It is pertinent to note that on the basis of the allegations raised and the nature of the relief claimed, more particularly the allegation of the petitioner that he has suffered personally due to the public nuisances complained of, the above Writ Petition (Crl.) has rightly been posted before this Bench. During the hearing, considering the nature of the allegations and charges levelled and also the submission of the Counsel appearing for the Government Departments, this Court, suo motu impleaded the Director of Town and Country Planning, directed the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation and the District Officer of the Fire and Rescue department, to submit reports. When this Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it has the power

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