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

1997 Supreme(P&H) 730

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.
Bhan Singh
Versus
Mohinder Singh
Criminal Revision No. 517 of 1987,
Decided On : MAY 2, 1997

Running of a saw mill and cotton ginning machine in a busy residential locality causing noise, vibrations, and emission of saw dust and cotton particles amounts to a public nuisance.

Headnote:

PUBLIC NUISANCE - SECTION 133 CR.P.C. - Running of saw mill and cotton ginning machine in a busy residential locality causing noise, vibrations, and emission of saw dust and cotton particles - Held to be a public nuisance injurious to the physical comfort of the community.

Fact of the Case:

A saw mill and cotton ginning machine were being run in a busy residential locality, causing noise, vibrations, and emission of saw dust and cotton particles. The complainant filed a petition under section 133 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M., who ordered the closure of the machines within 15 days. The respondents filed a revision, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, holding that it was a private nuisance and not a public nuisance.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the running of the saw mill and cotton ginning machine was a public nuisance, as it was causing noise, vibrations, and emission of saw dust and cotton particles, which were injurious to the physical comfort of the community. The Court also held that the Additional Sessions Judge had erred in disagreeing with the observations of the S.D.M. and in reversing his well-reasoned order.

Issues: Whether the running of a saw mill and cotton ginning machine in a busy residential locality causing noise, vibrations, and emission of saw dust and cotton particles amounts to a public nuisance.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the running of the saw mill and cotton ginning machine was a public nuisance, as it was causing noise, vibrations, and emission of saw dust and cotton particles, which were injurious to the physical comfort of the community. The Court also held that the Additional Sessions Judge had erred in disagreeing with the observations of the S.D.M. and in reversing his well-reasoned order.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision, reversing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and restoring the order of the S.D.M. The respondents were given one month's time to remove the nuisance and to close down the running of the saw mill and cotton ginning machine.

Judgment

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. In this revision the controversy revolves round the fact whether running of a saw mill and cotton ginning machine by respondent Mohinder Singh in the demised premises of respondent Sadhu Singh amounts to a public nuisance and its working is injurious to public comforts and health.

2. On petitioners initiation SHO of Police Station Mansa forwarded a report to D.S.P. Mansa reiterating that respondent Mohinder Singh is running saw mill and cotton ginning machine in the house of Sadhu Singh. Cotton and wood dust enters the house of complainant Bhan Singh. This machine is run by 8 H.P. engine, which causes vibrations and in turn is causing danger to the house of the complainant. Hence saw mill and cotton ginning machine be removed. This report was accepted by D.S.P. Mansa. Municipal Committee gave licence to respondent Mohinder Singh for installing saw mill and cotton ginning machine, but on the complaint of the complainant the licence was cancelled after a few days.

3. The complainant filed a petition under section 133 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M. Mansa. On being noticed respondent Mohinder Singh submitted reply. During evidence complainant Bhan Singh adduced his evidence. Sadhu Singh respondent was examined as a witness of respondent Mohinder Singh. Mohinder Singh also examined some witnesses to support his statement. After recording the evidence of the parties, S.D.M. himself inspected the spot in the presence of many persons of the locality. On the basis of the evidence adduced before him and also considering his own observations formed at the time of local inspection, learned S.D.M. arrived at the conclusion that the running of saw mill and cotton ginning machine causes nuisance to the residents of the locality. Therefore, he ordered its closure within 15 days.

4. Respondents filed Criminal Revision, which was allowed on 18.2.1987 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, holding that it is only a private nuisance; it does not come within the purview of public nuisance; the learned S.D.M. was more influenced by his own observations which he held after local inspection; it is two years old nuisance; at the time when Mohinder Singh obtained licence for installing saw mill and cotton ginning machine no neighbour objected to it and that the complainant has filed petition under section 133 Cr.P.C. because of his personal vendetta with the respondents. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also observed that the S.D.M. has relied on affidavits, which cannot be treated as evidence in the case.

5. The petitioner has assailed the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The evidence adduced by the parties was read over during arguments.

6. Petitioners learned counsel commented that even respondents have admitted on oath that saw mill and cotton ginning machine are installed in a busy residential locality. Houses of various persons are adjacent to the house of Sadhu Singh where this saw mill and cotton ginning machine are installed. The complainant has proved that when saw mill and cotton ginning machine are operated with the help of 8 H.P. engine, it causes vibrations in the house of the complainant. He has also examined other witnesses who have proved that when saw mill is operated and cotton ginning machine is run it not only causes noise and vibrations but saw dust and small particles of cotton emit out of the house of Sadhu Singh and they are causing health hazard to the people of the locality. Hence, according to him, learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the very well reasoned order of the S.D.M. The S.D.M. was not influenced by his own observations which he held at the time of local inspection, but he also minutely scanned the evidence adduced by the parties.

7. I have gone through the record with the help of the petitioners counsel.

8. The respondents have admitted that these machines are being run with an engine of 8 H.P. and they are installed in a busy residential l









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