IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with procedural requirements under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. is essential for the validity of prohibitory orders, and that such orders cannot be justified solely on the basis of law and order concerns.

ORDER :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 12.12.2023 in R.C.B1/666/2019 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District.

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 12.12.2023 in R.C.B1/666/2019 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District.

2. This Court by order, dated 18.12.2023 passed the following order:

“The petitioner on the impunged order passed by the respondent has been directed to immediately close the Thar Plant run by M/s.P.Rayin Civil and Conveyance Contractor (PRCC) Devala, Poker Colony, Devala P.O, The Nilgiris.

2. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this impugned order on the face of it, will not stand in the scrutiny of law for the reason that under Section 133 of Cr.PC, a show cause notice has to be issued and time limit has to be fixed for complying with the removal of nuisance. In the absence of the removal of nuisance and violation of the show cause notice, if the nuisance continues and thereafter, the prohibitory order shall be passed.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Officer at Nilgiris and he seeks time to get the records and go through the same and to file his counter affidavit. 4. In this case, no such procedure has been followed and further the order has been passed for the reason that agitation and protest were made by the the general public and creating frequent law and order and therefore, the prohibitory order has been passed under Section 133 of Cr.PC. Section 133 of Cr.PC is something different and not for compliance of law and order issues.

5. Post this case on 21.12.2023. In the meantime, the impugned order shall not be acted upon. The respondent is directed to file counter affidavit by then.”

3. In continuation and conjunction with the above order, dated 18.12.2023, this Court is passing the following order.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent filed counter of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur, The Nilgris. The factual narration found in the counter is about the earlier Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.1207 & 2483 of 2023 filed by one Ramanujam, S/o.Ganapathy for non action of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and for the petitioner hot mix plant causing health hazards. Added to it, public of the Poker Colony made agitations on 08.12.2023 and there was road roka and thereafter, a case in Crime Nos.247 & 248 of 2023 came to be registered by the Inspector of Police, Devala Police Station. The negotiation with the agitators yielded no result since the villagers were adamant. On 09.12.2023, the agitators agitated before the Village Administrative Office. Again on 12.12.2023, agitation continued, shops closed in the area and all political parties joined the agitation supporting the colony people in which 82 persons including 22 women participated. The Tahsildar gave report on 12.12.2023 and thereafter, the impugned order passed by the respondent. It is not a day affair, the sustained agitation and the adamant nature of the petitioner leads to a situation for issuance of order to remove nuisance. He further submitted that the Tahsildar addressing the Pollution Control Board, Udhagamandalam to verify whether the petitioner plant is running in compliance with the rules and regulations and in the meanwhile, initiation of action against the petitioner invoking 133 Cr.P.C., cannot be faulted since the issues are separate. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the revision.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the factual aspects which have been narrated in the counter, already stated in the petition with supporting documents. The issue herein is that whether the show cause notice issued and whether any time line fixed