IMPORTANT POINT
A business that poses a threat to public health or comfort can be regulated or prohibited under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the authority's findings on such matters are subject to limited judicial review.

ORDER :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the fourth respondent in R.C.No.1220/2023/B dated 05.1.2024 under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, the Code) on the ground that the same is illegal and arbitrary.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are as follows :

(i) A company named as Casa Grande developed two projects. One such project was named as Casa Grande Palm Meadows. It consisted of approved layout for both commercial and housing plots. The petitioner purchased one such plot through a sale deed dated 17.7.2019. The petitioner also obtained building permission from the second respondent through proceedings dated 14.12.2022 for putting up constructions for an extent of (a) 1760 sq.ft. in the first floor for commercial purposes, (b) 1440 sq.ft. in the second floor for residential purpose and (c) 1440 sq.ft. in the third floor for residential purpose, in a plot measuring an extent of 4640 sq.ft.

(ii) The petitioner had obtained MSME certificate from the Competent Authority and was carrying on the business of distribution of lubricant oil. The petitioner had also obtained necessary permission from the Fire Licence Authority and the GST Authorities and was doing the business. According to the petitioner, she procured only sealed barrels in bulk numbers and it was distributed to customers as per their requirements.

(iii) There was yet another project developed by Casa Grande called as Casa Grande Urbano, which is a villa project. There were some conflicts between the villa owners and the owners of the layout in Casa Grande Palm Meadows on the enjoyment of the common facilities. In view of this dispute, an attempt was made to close down the business run by the petitioner by giving false complaints and every time when an action was initiated, it was challenged by the petitioner and she succeeded before the court of law.

(iv) In this background, the fourth respondent issued summons calling for enquiry based on the complaint given by the third respondent and the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Vandalur Taluk. An enquiry was conducted under Section 133 of the Code on the ground that the business conducted by the petitioner is causing public nuisance. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and also submitted her reply along with supporting documents. However, the fourth respondent, through the impugned proceedings dated 05.1.2024, directed the petitioner to stop the trade activities since it was a residential area on the ground that the business conducted by the petitioner is causing nuisance in terms of health disorder and physical discomfort to the inhabitants living nearby. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent.

4. The main ground that is taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind and without considering the materials that were relied upon by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she was dealing with lubricant oil, which is neither inflammable nor was causing any health hazard and the business was conducted after getting proper permission in a building, for which, sanction was also given by the second respondent. Hence, it is contended that the fourth respondent had exceeded his jurisdiction and passed the impugned order.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 has submitted that the fourth respondent had taken into consideration the entire materials and also conducted an inspection in the site along with the Tahsildar concerned, that only thereafter, the fourth respondent came to the conclusion that the business conducted by the petitioner was causing public nuisance to the