IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN, J
Prema – Appellant
Versus
Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer – Respondent
ORDER :
Sunder Mohan, J.
The Criminal Revision challenges the order dated 21.02.2024 in Na.Ka.No.02/2022/A1 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 133 of Cr.P.C ., directing the petitioners and one D.Vikram, to vacate the Dog Breeding Centre, situated at No.28, Circuit House Road, Puliyangulam, Coimbatore.
2. The brief facts leading to the passing of the impugned order is as follows:
(a) One P.R.Damodaran, was the original owner of land measuring 56 cents at No.24, Kamaraj Road, Coimbatore.
(b) On 27.11.2009, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, had passed an order in Ref.No.2966/09/A2 under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C ., against one D.Vikram, son of the said P.R.Damodaran that he should not carry on the activity of keeping or holding any dogs in the said premises and directing him to forthwith remove all dogs from the premises.
(c) The said D.Vikram had challenged the said order before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2009. This Court, observed that the dogs in a residential area would cause nuisance; and that since the said Vikram was carrying on a commercial activity, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, need not be interfered with and dismissed the



Public nuisance established from keeping dogs in residential area, justifying action under Section 133 Cr.P.C., despite procedural irregularities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope and procedure of Sec. 133 of Cr.P.C. in addressing public nuisance and the requirement for recording reasons for administrative decisions....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the first respondent to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to present his defense before passing the final order.
Proceedings under Section 133 Cr.PC require evidence of public nuisance; private disputes cannot be adjudicated under this provision.
The court emphasized that a conditional order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory for initiating proceedings, and failure to comply renders subsequent actions invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation and application of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the need for eminent danger to the property....
animals’ well-being and welfare have been statutorily recognized under Section 3 and Section 11 of the PCA Act and the rights framed under the Act. Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and....
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 does not allow it to act as an appellate court; it corrects errors only when a grave injustice occurs due to procedural violations.
Public nuisance requires substantial proof of injury to the community; judicial discretion in abating nuisance is contingent upon credible evidence.
The court ruled that the elements of public nuisance were not established, leading to the quashing of prior orders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.